oxidecomputer / oxidecomputer/omicron
Blueprint planner: Be consistent with reporting status / decisions
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Rust
- Stars
- 572
- Forks
- 97
- Avg merge
- 2d 12h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 96
Description
Most of the planner's decisions are captured in the PlanningReport it emits, but we still have some steps that only emit logs that need updating. We should also make a pass through and decide how we want to use the comment field; in practice it's extremely useful because it's visible in omdb reconfigurator history (and effectively shows a step-by-step walkthrough of an update). But we have a few steps that don't emit comments at all, and it's a little ad hoc.
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by tracing the planner steps that emit PlanningReport decisions versus logs, then inspect how the comment field appears in omdb reconfigurator history. Review each step's reporting behavior and identify the intended consistent use of status, decisions, and comments. Done means the relevant steps report consistently and the history provides a complete step-by-step walkthrough.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- rust
- Domain
- backend
- Issue type
- Refactor
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 42/100