Skip to content

[draft] make route annotations for cascading_timeout values be respected - #245

Open
rebeccahhh wants to merge 1 commit into
ansible:mainfrom
rebeccahhh:make_cascading_timeouts_actually_set
Open

rebeccahhh wants to merge 1 commit into
ansible:mainfrom
rebeccahhh:make_cascading_timeouts_actually_set

Conversation

@rebeccahhh

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

rh-pre-commit.version: 2.3.2
rh-pre-commit.check-secrets: ENABLED

SUMMARY

because defaults are set for galaxy (see config/crd/bases/galaxy_v1beta1_galaxy_crd.yaml), if the values are set in the route annotation they are not respected, this is one option to theoretically rectify that.

note: this is a DRAFT y'all :) there are a couple ways we could solve this but this seems the best.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

https://github.com/ansible/galaxy-operator/blob/main/config/crd/bases/galaxy_v1beta1_galaxy_crd.yaml
#207

…t change

rh-pre-commit.version: 2.3.2
rh-pre-commit.check-secrets: ENABLED
@rebeccahhh rebeccahhh changed the title [draft] make cr changes for cascading_timeout values be respected [draft] make route annotations for cascading_timeout values be respected Mar 19, 2026
@rebeccahhh

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

sorry about the initially misleading title, was too in the weeds to see the sunshine.

# set these defaults the same way as Hub.
- name: set gunicorn_timeout based on annotation
set_fact:
gunicorn_timeout: "{{ (this_annotations['aap.ansible.io/gunicorn_timeout'][:-1]) | int }}"

@kdelee kdelee Mar 20, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

??? I thought we would just set this based on client_request_timeout and client_request_timeout comes from aap.ansible.io/client-request-timeout and do max(gunicorn_timeout, clien_request_timeout / 2) or whatever math we are currently trying to do in the default vars

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

oh we absolutely can, but theoretically they could modify the timeout in the route so this would account for that. I don't think this is the "right" way per se, but was an option.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants