-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 213
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add command to show historical runs of porter #1699
Comments
Hi @carolynvs can I work on this? |
Sure! Let me know if you have any questions about how to get the necessary data to display. Feel free to make a draft pull request and ask questions there if you get partway implemented and run into trouble. 👍 |
|
@carolynvs can a run really have multiple results? From this interface it kinda looks like it's possible. If this is possible, under what circumstances would it happen? And if a run has multiple results, do I list all of them? |
Most runs will have multiple "results" because every time porter updates the status of a run, it is a new result. The CNAB specification uses "append only" records, so we never update an existing record. Here is a representative sample of what the data will look like:
|
Fixed in #1779 |
On main, porter show includes historical run data, with the actions performed on the installation along with their claim id.
On release/v1, once we merge the installation spec support PR (#1684), that data is no longer included in show by default because it's not "free" data anymore and would require another query.
I propose that we split the show command into two commands, porter installation show (show the details of the installation) and porter installation runs list (list the historical runs for an installation). That gives the user more control over the data that will be provided and we don't make unnecessary (expensive) remote storage calls.
This requires that the command make a query to both the runs collection and the results collection, filtering by installation + namespace, and then combining the documents on the client.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: