-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 79
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
K8OP-294 Do not try to work out backup status if there are no pods #1462
Open
rzvoncek
wants to merge
10
commits into
main
Choose a base branch
from
K8OP-294
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
10 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
ed2a660
K8OP-294 Do not try to work out backup status if there are no pods
rzvoncek 417b98a
Fix the medusa task controller test
rzvoncek ca96675
Do not duplicate the slice with pods
rzvoncek 7462772
Return an error, not nil, if backupsummary is not found
rzvoncek d5607c6
Replace int32 with int when deleting pods in test
rzvoncek d9b53f5
Return nil backup summary for backup with no pods
rzvoncek 5e1f31a
Remove get before delete in medusabackupjob_controller_test
rzvoncek fc97af9
Use a dedicated test backup for the nil backupSummary case
rzvoncek d04f2ed
Return reconcile.TerminalError if getBackupSummary originates the error
rzvoncek 3ae146a
Expect backup with nil summary to actually start
rzvoncek File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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 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 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
This is related to the GetCassandraDatacenterPods..
Why not simply return podList.Items ? What's the point of making a new slice?
For this method, if there's no pods, why are we requeueing? Do we assume that pods will reappear?
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 don't know why we re-create the slice. It makes sense to not do it. I pushed the commit fixing this.
Yes, we are re-queing because the assumption is the pods will indeed reappear. In the initial ticket, they were replacing nodepools, and they eventually came back. Checking how precisely this works might deserve at least a manual test, and perhaps a follow up ticket.