-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17
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
Match labels #133
Match labels #133
Conversation
Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request. |
/test ? |
@mshitrit: The following commands are available to trigger required jobs:
Use In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
/test 4.13-openshift-e2e |
1 similar comment
/test 4.13-openshift-e2e |
Signed-off-by: Michael Shitrit <mshitrit@redhat.com>
/test 4.13-openshift-e2e |
Signed-off-by: Michael Shitrit <mshitrit@redhat.com>
/test 4.13-openshift-e2e |
/test 4.13-openshift-e2e |
Signed-off-by: Michael Shitrit <mshitrit@redhat.com>
/test 4.13-openshift-e2e |
Signed-off-by: Michael Shitrit <mshitrit@redhat.com>
/test 4.13-openshift-e2e |
/test 4.12-openshift-e2e |
/test 4.13-openshift-e2e |
2 similar comments
/test 4.13-openshift-e2e |
/test 4.13-openshift-e2e |
/test 4.13-openshift-e2e |
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.
Wouldn't it make sense to add this to the place where we already deal with the Daemonset? 🤔
edit: "this" refers to the last commit with old DS deletion
Signed-off-by: Michael Shitrit <mshitrit@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Shitrit <mshitrit@redhat.com>
/test 4.13-openshift-e2e |
/test 4.12-openshift-e2e |
Signed-off-by: Michael Shitrit <mshitrit@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Shitrit <mshitrit@redhat.com>
/test 4.12-openshift-e2e |
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.
I would reorder things in the removeOldDsOnUpdateOperator()
a bit (error handling first, then the happy path), but I won't block on this. Btw, why Operator
in the method name?
Can we have a unit test for this?
Yep, I agree it would make more sense
IIUC this use case is relevant for when the operator is updated, just "update" seemed very generic to me and I wasn't sure the context will be clear enough
Indeed, good point. |
Ah ok, makes sense. Maybe |
Signed-off-by: Michael Shitrit <mshitrit@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Shitrit <mshitrit@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Shitrit <mshitrit@redhat.com>
/test 4.12-openshift-e2e |
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.
nice test 👍🏼
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: mshitrit, slintes 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 |
In order to solve ECOPROJECT-1307 using and matching unique labels in DS