-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 917
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
check deployment statefulset rollout not use check pod ready #3221
check deployment statefulset rollout not use check pod ready #3221
Conversation
Codecov Report
📣 This organization is not using Codecov’s GitHub App Integration. We recommend you install it so Codecov can continue to function properly for your repositories. Learn more @@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #3221 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 49.06% 49.07% +0.01%
==========================================
Files 203 203
Lines 18354 18352 -2
==========================================
+ Hits 9005 9007 +2
+ Misses 8859 8856 -3
+ Partials 490 489 -1
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here. |
and when the for loop checks, the set timeout time is not accurate @yanfeng1992 why the timeout is not accurate? I don't understand. could you explain that? |
b7b0116
to
2da8c8a
Compare
When checking circularly, if the deployment has three replicas, check them serially in order. After checking the first pod, hasn’t the second pod been created for a while? @calvin0327 |
2da8c8a
to
8728681
Compare
Does the WaitPodReadyTimeout here work? It feels like it can be removed. @jwcesign |
Looks like no place uses this, cc @lonelyCZ for checking |
What about move check.go to |
Can you confirm these two questions? 1.What about move check.go to kamadactl/utils 2.
Does the WaitPodReadyTimeout here work? It feels like it can be removed. |
1 sorry my mistake. I mean kamadactl/util |
8728681
to
eacb416
Compare
@wuyingjun-lucky I solved these two problems |
LGTM |
Please have a look @lonelyCZ |
I'm sorry I missed that. I will look it ASAP. /assign |
29e9d9e
to
51c13c5
Compare
51c13c5
to
d8f70b2
Compare
/lgtm |
Thanks @yanfeng1992 , I just tested it that worked fine. |
/assign |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It makes sense to me that wait for StatefulSet
and Deployment
ready instead of the Pod
. It's more straightforward.
I suggest letting this PR focus on using WaitForStatefulsetRollout
and WaitForDeploymentRollout
to replace WaitPodReady
, and don't touch any flags
.
Please send another PR to handle the flags particularly if you think it needs to, so that we can add more clear release notes to users.
d8f70b2
to
dfae395
Compare
@RainbowMango @lonelyCZ Please take a look at the latest commit |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Only some nits, otherwise LGTM.
Thanks.
Signed-off-by: huangyanfeng <[email protected]>
dfae395
to
fd062ce
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
/lgtm
/approve
Thanks for your quick response.
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: RainbowMango The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
What type of PR is this?
/kind cleanup
What this PR does / why we need it:
Now the way to check the karmada component is to traverse all the pods according to the label. I think this way is not perfect, and when the for loop checks, the set timeout time is not accurate.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: