Update patch set 1

Patch Set 1: Code-Review-1

(1 comment)

Patch-set: 1
Reviewer: Gerrit User 6926 <6926@4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543>
Label: Code-Review=-1

c70c9249249504b39cde5ea95caa86f2df921acb

@@ -39,6 +39,29 @@
       "revId": "c70c9249249504b39cde5ea95caa86f2df921acb",
       "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543",
       "unresolved": true
+    },
+    {
+      "key": {
+        "uuid": "40e1c444_2fa7f3a6",
+        "filename": "specs/xena/healthcheck-new-way.rst",
+        "patchSetId": 1
+      },
+      "lineNbr": 46,
+      "author": {
+        "id": 6926
+      },
+      "writtenOn": "2021-08-05T12:25:28Z",
+      "side": 1,
+      "message": "I don\u0027t think it is a great approach to verify a container as a member of an ensemble. A health of a container should not depend on external components. Otherwise it is impossible to say which is the failure container, if both API and MQ, or API or DB, or DB and MQ has seen as unhealthy. To properly assign alerts to clearly visible failure boundaries, each container must be checked as an independent unit. Perhaps the proposed approach better fits the liveness checks instead of healthchecks? If we\u0027ll have one day those under k8s management, we could get back to the ensemble-based checks.",
+      "range": {
+        "startLine": 45,
+        "startChar": 0,
+        "endLine": 46,
+        "endChar": 63
+      },
+      "revId": "c70c9249249504b39cde5ea95caa86f2df921acb",
+      "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543",
+      "unresolved": true
     }
   ]
 }