Migrate healthcheckextension to internal/healthcheck implementation #42791
Conversation
|
This PR was marked stale due to lack of activity. It will be closed in 14 days. |
d33d815 to
677e024
Compare
4f59c0b to
434411a
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks again @iblancasa. Looking a bit more closely, I think we have some opportunities to simplify how we do this a little. Let me know what you think.
9def875 to
a4527ee
Compare
Signed-off-by: Israel Blancas <[email protected]>
|
|
||
| // Unmarshal a confmap.Conf into the config struct. | ||
| func (c *Config) Unmarshal(conf *confmap.Conf) error { | ||
| // Initialize with default values to enable unmarshaling into nested structs |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there a reason we can't do this with the NewDefaultConfig function below?
|
|
||
| // HTTP contains the configuration for the v2 HTTP healthcheck server. | ||
| HTTP *healthcheck.HTTPConfig `mapstructure:"http"` | ||
|
|
||
| // GRPC contains the configuration for the v2 gRPC healthcheck server. | ||
| GRPC *healthcheck.GRPCConfig `mapstructure:"grpc"` | ||
|
|
||
| // ComponentHealth configuration shared between HTTP and gRPC v2 servers. | ||
| ComponentHealth *healthcheck.ComponentHealthConfig `mapstructure:"component_health"` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there a reason we can't just make this whole struct an alias to healthcheck.Config like in the v2 extension? That way the two would be in complete lockstep and we wouldn't need a translation layer when the feature gate is enabled.
| // ComponentHealth configuration shared between HTTP and gRPC v2 servers. | ||
| ComponentHealth *healthcheck.ComponentHealthConfig `mapstructure:"component_health"` | ||
|
|
||
| hasV2Settings bool |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it possible to track this based on the feature gate and whether the fields were set? We can use configoptional to track whether the user specified a value if necessary.
Follow up for #42256.