ReconfiguratorConfig: move disruption_policy into PlannerConfig - #11282
Open
jgallagher wants to merge 2 commits into
Open
ReconfiguratorConfig: move disruption_policy into PlannerConfig#11282jgallagher wants to merge 2 commits into
ReconfiguratorConfig: move disruption_policy into PlannerConfig#11282jgallagher wants to merge 2 commits into
Conversation
sunshowers
approved these changes
Sep 11, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is a little prep work to make the upcoming "planner manages sled evacuation" change smaller. (There will probably be a handful of these.)
I think the planner is the only consumer of
disruption_policy(other than omdb / diffing / etc debugging things), because it's the one that has to set it when deciding to evacuate a sled. So I think moving it intoPlannerConfigis reasonable? But would appreciate a gut check. (If we don't do this, we'll need to pass it down into the planning input some other way.)