-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 183
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
chore: Bump operatorpkg #1701
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
chore: Bump operatorpkg #1701
Conversation
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: jigisha620 The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
Hi @jigisha620. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. 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-sigs/prow repository. |
3c2a386
to
0175991
Compare
@@ -88,12 +88,6 @@ var _ = Describe("Readiness", func() { | |||
nodePool = ExpectExists(ctx, env.Client, nodePool) | |||
Expect(nodePool.StatusConditions().Get(status.ConditionReady).IsFalse()).To(BeTrue()) | |||
}) | |||
It("should have status condition on nodePool as ready if nodeClass is ready", func() { |
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.
Since operatorpkg has now changes for observed generation, nodePool status condition will not go ready unless the dependents are also set to true within the reconciliation lopp.
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.
IMO: We shouldn't drop this test just because of this. Can we set the dependents for our other sub-conditions to true so that this test passes?
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 10967195434Details
💛 - Coveralls |
@@ -88,12 +88,6 @@ var _ = Describe("Readiness", func() { | |||
nodePool = ExpectExists(ctx, env.Client, nodePool) | |||
Expect(nodePool.StatusConditions().Get(status.ConditionReady).IsFalse()).To(BeTrue()) | |||
}) | |||
It("should have status condition on nodePool as ready if nodeClass is ready", func() { |
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.
IMO: We shouldn't drop this test just because of this. Can we set the dependents for our other sub-conditions to true so that this test passes?
@@ -69,7 +69,6 @@ var _ = Describe("Counter", func() { | |||
ExpectApplied(ctx, env.Client, nodePool) | |||
ExpectObjectReconciled(ctx, env.Client, nodePoolValidationController, nodePool) | |||
nodePool = ExpectExists(ctx, env.Client, nodePool) | |||
Expect(nodePool.StatusConditions().IsTrue(status.ConditionReady)).To(BeTrue()) |
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.
Why do we drop this? Can we hold the same testing line and just make changes to ensure that we can keep this around?
Fixes #N/A
Description
Bump operatorpkg version
How was this change tested?
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.