DNS: Don't try to apply empty changesets #8464
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
cncf-cla: yes
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: justinsb 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 |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
approved
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What is the interface contract?
Is it that the caller needs to check IsEmpty() before calling Apply(), in which case:
- All the other callers need to be fixed (unless they're proven to never generate empty changesets).
- The check inside of the GCE
Apply()implementation is unnecessary and should be removed.
Or is it that the implementation of Apply() needs to tolerate empty changesets, in which case:
- The check in the caller is unnecessary and should be removed.
- All of the other implementations of
Apply()need to be fixed. - The
IsEmpty()interface method is unnecessary and should be removed.
I believe the second contract is simpler and less prone to bugs.
| @@ -115,7 +119,7 @@ func (c *ResourceRecordChangeset) Apply() error { | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| func (c *ResourceRecordChangeset) IsEmpty() bool { | |||
| return len(c.additions) == 0 && len(c.removals) == 0 | |||
| return len(c.additions) == 0 && len(c.removals) == 0 && len(c.upserts) == 0 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't there be a unit test for this, covering all of the implementations of the interface method? The only prior caller to this method I could find was a unit test for the case of it being empty. There should be tests for one addition, one removal, and one upsert.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, there should be. We inherited a lot of this code from k/k, and the design is pretty different from the rest of the code (even the rest of the code in k/k). It's hard to resist just rewriting the whole thing...
|
It should be the second contract, I believe. I'll add a comment and fix up the others! |
justinsb
force-pushed
the
google_clouddns_delete_records
branch
from
c22b4e9
to
19b47a0
Compare
k8s-ci-robot
added
size/L
|
Documented the contract, changed the signature to force a code change to every call & definition, added a generic test of the contract behaviour that was problematic. |
justinsb
force-pushed
the
google_clouddns_delete_records
branch
from
19b47a0
to
8028f38
Compare
|
Looks good, aside from the gofmt failure. |
justinsb
added
area/gce
and removed
area/provider/digitalocean
For GCE this was resulting in confusing error messages.
Document the contract a bit more, change the signature by adding a context arg and following through to make sure we honor the contract everywhere.
justinsb
force-pushed
the
google_clouddns_delete_records
branch
from
8028f38
to
868a025
Compare
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
area/provider/digitalocean
This was the root bug that was causing the over-logging on GCE.
justinsb
force-pushed
the
google_clouddns_delete_records
branch
from
868a025
to
3306549
Compare
|
/lgtm |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
For GCE this was resulting in confusing error messages.