PROPOSAL: stop recording 'executing update-status hook'

[Tim Penhey]

On 20/05/17 19:48, Merlijn Sebrechts wrote:
> On May 20, 2017 09:05, "John Meinel" <john at arbash-meinel.com 
> <mailto:john at arbash-meinel.com>> wrote:
> 
>     I would actually prefer if it shows up in 'juju status' but that we
>     suppress it from 'juju status-log' by default.
> 
> 
> This is still very strange behavior. Why should this be default? Just 
> pipe the output of juju status through grep and exclude update-status if 
> that is really what you want.
> 
> However, I would even argue that this isn't what you want in most 
> use-cases.  "update-status" isn't seen as a special hook in 
> charms.reactive. Anything can happen in that hook if the conditions are 
> right. Ignoring update-status will have unforeseen consequences...

Hmm... there are (at least) two problems here.

Firstly, update-status *should* be a special case hook, and it shouldn't 
take long.

The purpose of the update-status hook was to provide a regular beat for 
the charm to report on the workload status. Really it shouldn't be doing 
other things.

The fact that it is a periodic execution rather than being executed in 
response to model changes is the reason it isn't fitting so well into 
the regular status and status history updates.

The changes to the workload status would still be shown in the history 
of the workload status, and the workload status is shown in the status 
output.

One way to limit the execution of the update-status hook call would be 
to put a hard timeout on it enforced by the agent.

Thoughts?