Skip to content

MWI: Document tbot's new /readyz endpoint#55776

Merged
boxofrad merged 3 commits intomasterfrom
boxofrad/document-tbot-readyz
Jul 1, 2025
Merged

MWI: Document tbot's new /readyz endpoint#55776
boxofrad merged 3 commits intomasterfrom
boxofrad/document-tbot-readyz

Conversation

@boxofrad
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Documents #55761 and #55765.

@boxofrad boxofrad added documentation machine-id no-changelog Indicates that a PR does not require a changelog entry labels Jun 16, 2025
@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jun 16, 2025

Amplify deployment status

Branch Commit Job ID Status Preview Updated (UTC)
boxofrad/document-tbot-readyz bab1dd8 2 ✅SUCCEED boxofrad-document-tbot-readyz 2025-06-17 13:08:45

@boxofrad boxofrad added this pull request to the merge queue Jul 1, 2025
@github-merge-queue github-merge-queue bot removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks Jul 1, 2025
@boxofrad boxofrad added this pull request to the merge queue Jul 1, 2025
Merged via the queue into master with commit e95f7cf Jul 1, 2025
41 checks passed
@boxofrad boxofrad deleted the boxofrad/document-tbot-readyz branch July 1, 2025 14:15
@backport-bot-workflows
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@boxofrad See the table below for backport results.

Branch Result
branch/v17 Create PR
branch/v18 Create PR

boxofrad added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 1, 2025
github-merge-queue bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 2, 2025
* MWI: Add a useful `/readyz` endpoint to tbot

Backports #55761 to branch/v17

* MWI: allow custom service names in tbot

Backport #55765 to branch/v17

* MWI: Document tbot's new `/readyz` endpoint

Backport #55776 to branch/v17
@ptgott
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

ptgott commented Jul 7, 2025

@boxofrad Just checking if this one needs a v18 backport. Thanks!

@boxofrad
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

boxofrad commented Jul 7, 2025

Thanks for checking @ptgott! It does, but I'm just waiting for #56485 to merge so I can backport it with the implementation in one go (without dealing with conflicts).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants