Skip to content
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

[release-v1.5] Fix deletion case for extension predicates #2445

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jun 15, 2020

Conversation

timuthy
Copy link
Contributor

@timuthy timuthy commented Jun 10, 2020

How to categorize this PR?

/area quality
/kind bug
/priority normal

What this PR does / why we need it:
This PR fixes the deletion of shoots or their extension resources in the seed once shoots were in a Failed state.

Special notes for your reviewer:

Release note:

An issue has been fixed which caused failed shoot clusters to not be deleted successfully after a retry had been triggered.

@timuthy timuthy requested a review from a team as a code owner June 10, 2020 13:32
@gardener-robot gardener-robot added area/quality Output qualification (tests, checks, scans, automation in general, etc.) related kind/bug Bug priority/normal labels Jun 10, 2020
@rfranzke rfranzke changed the title Fix deletion case for extension predicates [release-v1.5] Fix deletion case for extension predicates Jun 10, 2020
@rfranzke
Copy link
Member

Maybe I missed it, but why isn't it a 1:1 backport of #2435? This is a different commit now?

@danielfoehrKn
Copy link
Contributor

@rfranzke I think this is the "safer" version (only adding a predicate to make the deletion case working) from there.
Though I am not sure, thinking about it, if it would not be better to backport the exact same commit.

@timuthy
Copy link
Contributor Author

timuthy commented Jun 12, 2020

Well, that's exactly what we discussed here after the suggestion from @ialidzhikov and your response.

@rfranzke
Copy link
Member

I see, probably I missed this point, sorry. I'm fine with this PR if you think it makes more sense, but why can't we simply take the same fix that we did for the master branch?

Copy link
Member

@rfranzke rfranzke left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

/lgtm
/ok-to-test

@timuthy
Copy link
Contributor Author

timuthy commented Jun 15, 2020

@rfranzke I have no strong opinion but know it was confusing to apply a different fix as a back port because it looked differently. Now, I applied the exact same changes we had applied to the master branch.

@rfranzke
Copy link
Member

Thanks Tim!

@rfranzke rfranzke merged commit d123907 into gardener:release-v1.5 Jun 15, 2020
@timuthy timuthy deleted the release-v1.5 branch June 15, 2020 12:07
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area/quality Output qualification (tests, checks, scans, automation in general, etc.) related kind/bug Bug
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

6 participants