Synchronously emit template events #56
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
This should make it slightly more re-usable in other controllers. In particular this allows the `instance` to be `nil`, which might be the case if the template was not created. Signed-off-by: Justin Kulikauskas <[email protected]>
This might be slightly more performant, and other things can use this clientset. Signed-off-by: Justin Kulikauskas <[email protected]>
Previously, the controller-runtime event recorder was used for these events. Other policy controllers have moved away from that, for various reasons. In this case, if a policy went from pending to noncompliant and back to pending, the "old" pending event would be re-used by the event recorder, and only the `lastTimestamp` would be updated. In this case, if a policy controller emitted a compliance event within the same second as the Pending event, the status-sync would see it as a tie, and use the hex-encoded nanoseconds in the event name. But the event name was not updated from the original instance when the policy was pending, so the events would be ordered incorrectly. Most error cases from this synchronous sending can be ignored because they are already error cases that would be requeued. Refs: - https://issues.redhat.com/browse/ACM-4699 Signed-off-by: Justin Kulikauskas <[email protected]>
|
does this pr need squash? |
|
Succeeding 30 times in a row on the targeted framework tests: (last 3 commits). |
I can squash it if you want, but I felt like splitting the changes into these commits made sense. |
yiraeChristineKim
approved these changes
Apr 18, 2023
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: JustinKuli, yiraeChristineKim 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 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Main commit:
Previously, the controller-runtime event recorder was used for these events. Other policy controllers have moved away from that, for various reasons. In this case, if a policy went from pending to noncompliant and back to pending, the "old" pending event would be re-used by the event recorder, and only the
lastTimestampwould be updated. In this case, if a policy controller emitted a compliance event within the same second as the Pending event, the status-sync would see it as a tie, and use the hex-encoded nanoseconds in the event name. But the event name was not updated from the original instance when the policy was pending, so the events would be ordered incorrectly.Most error cases from this synchronous sending can be ignored because they are already error cases that would be requeued.
Refs: