'HomeAssistantCore.update' blocked from execution, system is not healthy

Configuration
112

I’m a supervisor developer. I can assure you, we will not. We’re not the police or your parents.

The message has been conveyed. Many people removed portainer. Many did not. We’re aware the ones that did not are going to do what they want. Which is completely fine, do what you want, it’s your system.

There’s really only one reason that would change. If users begin submitting issues and hide the fact they’re using portainer and that turns out to be the root cause. Then we waste a lot of time debugging something which isn’t supported. Anytime that happens a check is added to prevent future wastes of time.

If you still want to run portainer after this, go for it. Idk if you noticed but I’m the one who shared how to turn off the healthy check around these threads. Just respect our time and don’t submit issues from unsupported systems that are being disguised as supported.

6 Likes
113

I renamed the container as well, but supervisor still sees the image of portainer, and that’s my problem
have you renamed just the container or as well the image?

114

Oh, I see. So it’s just a matter of time then (there always going to be one who does the boo-boo and then everyone take the fall for them). My arguments above have essentially not been answered and I politely stand by them. With this way of thinking, what’s to stop you from completely obstructing HA from even starting, when another container is “detected”? Absolutely nothing and the gradual descent to something like that is rather obvious. Where/when is this going to stop, if not at a complete “prohibition” of supervised installs?

Anyway, I still cannot understand for the life of me why you don’t simply add a switch or an option along with a big red flag. Judging by the above posts the overwhelming majority of the community is against this particular change. Instead, the “healthy” state is effectively hidden behind 5 clicks, an unrelated tab (Repairs?) and 3 dots, in order to reach it. This is at least counter-intuitive.
At least think about it.

Finally, why are you still proposing to completely shut off the health check and potentially create more problems for the system when some other problem comes along? We lose an important check. Since a better solution has come up (just renaming the container), I think that this should be the recommended one.

115

assuming that you’ve pulled the image with docker pull portainer/portainer-ce:latest, just after tagging and running portainer with other name, try this: docker rmi portainer/portainer-ce [or change names accordingly if your image is different].
worked for me.

116

what I did was to delete the container, and created a new container with a different name but with the same image
if I run your command I get following error message

Error response from daemon: conflict: unable to remove repository reference “portainer/portainer-ce” (must force) - container 11f804a25e25 is using its referenced image 033d989d812e

117

didn’t saw the exact WTH, so I made my own. feel free to vote here

118

I guess the important question here is, “does HA check only container names or image names too, and if yes to which extent”. If I were to rename my container to, say, P0rtainer (with an 0 instead of an o), would that be sufficient to bypass the check?

119 
UNHEALTHY_IMAGES = [
    "watchtower",
    "ouroboros",
    "portainer",
]
1 Like
120

I’m seeing where you’re getting at and I was thinking of asking it: Ok then, could someone give some advice/guidance, how to modify the code and remove these completely without breaking the system? I realise that this would have to be done after every update, but I guess it could be a temporary solution.

PS: My container is named portainer-ce and it also gets banned by the HA “police” (just kidding here :grinning: ).

121

Already did! :grinning:

122

changing image’s name is way easier than forking supervisor at every update. I guess :wink:

call the container “this_is_not_the_container_youre_looking_for” and you’re good :smiley:

2 Likes
123

I will call it “rage_against_ha_police” or “we_want_our_health_back” :rofl: :rofl:

2 Likes
124

I guess I am not going to make things worse by showing whole command set, we’re here to exchange knowgledge anyway, so here it is: I used this set of commands to pull, tag and start portainer while testing “stealth” mode:

docker stop portainer
docker rm portainer
docker pull portainer/portainer-ce:latest
docker tag portainer/portainer-ce:latest blahblahblah

docker run -d -p 8000:8000 -p 9443:9443 --name=blahblahblah --restart=always -v /var/run/docker.sock:/var/run/docker.sock -v portainer_data:/data blahblahblah

docker rmi portainer/portainer-ce
5 Likes
125

this is what I missed. thank you

126

Wait, so container’s name is checked too? Not just image’s?

127

at least I saw that the container and image name was checked. but with the rename it works now for me as well
thanks to @pejotigrek

1 Like
128

don’t know. I saw similar solution somewhere and tinkered it to my needs. worked, so didn’t thought too much about it :wink:

129

…and now I’ll be banned from devs for life! :smiley:

1 Like
130

Beware of the HA Police!
Anyway, where did he find that?

If that’s to be believed, it’s just the image’s name that’s being checked. I guess we’ll have to check with the HA PD :rofl:

131

should be here