-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 38.8k
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
Correct regexp check in IsNodeUnmanagedByProvider #70135
Correct regexp check in IsNodeUnmanagedByProvider #70135
Conversation
The IsNodeUnmanagedByProviderID function in the Azure Cloud Provider should return the inverse of regexp.Match in the case of checking the ProviderID
/kind bug |
/ok-to-test |
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
@feiskyer to you for review/approval
/priority critical-urgent |
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.
@marc-sensenich Thanks for the fix.
/lgtm
/approve
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: feiskyer, marc-sensenich 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 |
Release note:
|
…f-#70135-upstream-release-1.12 Automated cherry pick of #70135: Correct regexp check in IsNodeUnmanagedByProvider
The IsNodeUnmanagedByProviderID function in the Azure Cloud Provider should
return the inverse of regexp.Match in the case of checking the ProviderID
What type of PR is this?
/kind bug
What this PR does / why we need it:
Correctly checks in a VM provisioned by Azure is considered to be an unmanaged node by the cloud provider
Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in
fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)
format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):Relates to #70126
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: