-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 479
v1beta2: Delete .enable field from WaitForPodsReady API in config #7628
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
v1beta2: Delete .enable field from WaitForPodsReady API in config #7628
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for kubernetes-sigs-kueue canceled.
|
616b29d to
803b982
Compare
803b982 to
0d88784
Compare
|
/cc @mimowo |
0d88784 to
40e7c62
Compare
40e7c62 to
2b61db3
Compare
|
please rebase |
| if cfg.WaitForPodsReady != nil { | ||
| cfg.WaitForPodsReady.Timeout = cmp.Or(cfg.WaitForPodsReady.Timeout, &metav1.Duration{Duration: defaultPodsReadyTimeout}) | ||
| cfg.WaitForPodsReady.BlockAdmission = cmp.Or(cfg.WaitForPodsReady.BlockAdmission, &cfg.WaitForPodsReady.Enable) | ||
| cfg.WaitForPodsReady.BlockAdmission = cmp.Or(cfg.WaitForPodsReady.BlockAdmission, ptr.To(true)) |
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.
Actually, I think we should change the default to "false" as part of v1beta2. This is much more commonly used setting.
Let me open: #7656
2b61db3 to
365b88a
Compare
365b88a to
6d3142a
Compare
|
/retest Due to known issue #7457. |
Done |
mimowo
left a comment
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
Thank you, let's continue on #7656
|
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: 60cb6971c8192d2524fe9fb78312b9b3761b444f
|
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: mbobrovskyi, mimowo 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 |
| // WaitForPodsReady defines configuration for the Wait For Pods Ready feature, | ||
| // which is used to ensure that all Pods are ready within the specified time. | ||
| type WaitForPodsReady struct { |
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.
If users want to enable w/ default parameters, how to specify that?
@mimowo @mbobrovskyi Do you assume the following one?
waitForPodsReady: {}I am slightly histatin this way since It looks weird.
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.
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 think so too, let me mention this in issue.
| managerConfig: | ||
| controllerManagerConfigYaml: |- | ||
| apiVersion: config.kueue.x-k8s.io/v1beta2 | ||
| apiVersion: config.kueue.x-k8s.io/v1beta1 |
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.
@mbobrovskyi Any reason why we use v1beta1?
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.
Just for test. To make sure that we can use it with v1beta1.
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.
SGTM, thank you for describing that.
What type of PR is this?
/kind cleanup
/kind api-change
What this PR does / why we need it:
v1beta2: Delete .enable field from WaitForPodsReady API in config
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #7584
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?