remove meaningless poolType using #1318
Merged
Conversation
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
Signed-off-by: buffalo1024 <yikaichen@yikaichendeMacBook-Pro.local>
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1318 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 28.74% 28.74%
=======================================
Files 34 34
Lines 3079 3079
=======================================
Hits 885 885
Misses 2077 2077
Partials 117 117 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
SSmallMonster
added
the
kind/cleanup
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What this PR does / why we need it:
poolType is meaningless, we decide to remote it and we don't need to write it in storageclass's spec.parameters anymore.
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?