Exporters port config - common behaviour

[Deezzir]

Problem

Currently, the charm config UX is uneven between the exporters. An operator can configure a por for hardware and smarctl exporters, but not for the dcgm one.

Solution

We could either:

• Add support for port configuration for the dcgm exporter.
• Drop the port configuration for all exporters.

Personally, I prefer the second option as it will drastically simplify the charm logic. Also, it seems like this option is rarely used in production.

[syncronize-issues-to-jira]

Thank you for reporting your feedback to us!

The internal ticket has been created: https://warthogs.atlassian.net/browse/SOLENG-1677.

This message was autogenerated

[gabrielcocenza]

If I remember correctly, Juju charms are very annoying on removing configurations. Once you create, not sure if you can remove to say the truth.

With that in mind, that is why we didn't create a config for dcgm.

[jneo8]

Personally, I prefer the second option as it will drastically simplify the charm logic. Also, it seems like this option is rarely used in production.

I am not very sure about this. cc @przemeklal .

[przemeklal]

For the hw-observer, this option was necessary on every cloud due to the port conflict with juju-backup-all.