-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 822
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
ObjectWatcher.Delete checks if resource can be deleted #4880
ObjectWatcher.Delete checks if resource can be deleted #4880
Conversation
Thanks @whitewindmills |
Ask @chaunceyjiang to help take a review. |
07310cb
to
032f827
Compare
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 @@
## master #4880 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 53.07% 53.08% +0.01%
==========================================
Files 251 251
Lines 20389 20389
==========================================
+ Hits 10821 10824 +3
+ Misses 8855 8852 -3
Partials 713 713
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Signed-off-by: whitewindmills <jayfantasyhjh@gmail.com>
032f827
to
f9f3d47
Compare
klog.Infof("Abort deleting the resource(kind=%s, %s/%s) exists in cluster %v but not managed by karmada", clusterObj.GetKind(), clusterObj.GetNamespace(), clusterObj.GetName(), clusterName) | ||
return nil | ||
} | ||
util.MergeLabel(workload, workv1alpha2.WorkPermanentIDLabel, util.GetLabelValue(work.Labels, workv1alpha2.WorkPermanentIDLabel)) |
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 line appears to have been deleted.
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.
we don't need it anymore, it's never be used.
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.
That's actually what I was wondering too. Why did it need to be added before? 🙈
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 have to admit it was my mistake.
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 was surprised with this line, that's the reason why I always ask for small PRs.
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
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.
/approve
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: RainbowMango 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 |
What type of PR is this?
/kind cleanup
What this PR does / why we need it:
Split from #4813.
See #4813 (comment)
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: