Translate beaker.pool hardware requirement properly for mrack

[skycastlelily]

Related to #2346

Pull Request Checklist

• implement the feature
• write the documentation
• extend the test coverage
• update the specification
• adjust plugin docstring
• modify the json schema
• mention the version
• include a release note

[happz]

@skycastlelily I think that with the last push, you overwritten the original changes adding the implementation to tmt/steps/provision/mrack.py. All that's left now is the operator update (pre-commit & mypy complain about the list vs tuple, BTW).

It's really better to avoid force pushes, one can easily lose changes. We recommend adding new changes to PRs with new commits, e.g. named "squash: ...", eventually they would be squashed before merging, when all is done.

[skycastlelily]

I think that with the last push, you overwritten the original changes

adding the implementation That's on purpose, I already implemented beaker.pool in merged #3074 , after thinking twice, I prefer to keep the implementation way as it is.

We recommend adding new changes to PRs with new commits, e.g. named

"squash: ..." I know, but for this one, I force pushes it for the above reason^^

…

On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 3:32 PM Miloš Prchlík ***@***.***> wrote: @skycastlelily <https://github.com/skycastlelily> I think that with the last push, you overwritten the original changes adding the implementation to tmt/steps/provision/mrack.py. All that's left now is the operator update (pre-commit & mypy complain about the list vs tuple, BTW). It's really better to avoid force pushes, one can easily lose changes. We recommend adding new changes to PRs with new commits, e.g. named "squash: ...", eventually they would be squashed before merging, when all is done. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#3271 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKFR23CRJHYE7W3RCAIAUDLZ3NXPZAVCNFSM6AAAAABPU4G2L6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDIMJQGI4DAOJUGE> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[happz]

I think that with the last push, you overwritten the original changes
adding the implementation

That's on purpose, I already implemented beaker.pool in merged #3074 , after thinking twice, I prefer to keep the implementation way as it is.

I see, makes sense.

BTW pre-commit is still failing, that's not related to this discussion, and should be fixed.

[skycastlelily]

Updated^^

…

On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 6:39 PM Miloš Prchlík ***@***.***> wrote: I think that with the last push, you overwritten the original changes adding the implementation That's on purpose, I already implemented beaker.pool in merged #3074 <#3074> , after thinking twice, I prefer to keep the implementation way as it is. I see, makes sense. BTW pre-commit is still failing, that's not related to this discussion, and should be fixed. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#3271 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKFR23HQWBSLLQTDMMMZSQLZ3ONODAVCNFSM6AAAAABPU4G2L6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDIMJQHAYDAMBRGU> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[psss]

All failures are irrelevant, merging.