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

clean the deprecated func Parallelize #76595

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Apr 16, 2019

Conversation

@danielqsj
Copy link
Member

commented Apr 15, 2019

What type of PR is this?

/kind cleanup

What this PR does / why we need it:

I find the func Parallelize was deprecated in v1.13 by #68403. And no reference in k/k repo.
I think it's safe to clean it in v1.15.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

Remove the function Parallelize, please convert to use the function ParallelizeUntil.
@roycaihw

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Apr 15, 2019

/assign @cheftako

@danielqsj

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Apr 15, 2019

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot requested review from sttts, wgliang and wojtek-t Apr 15, 2019

@danielqsj

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Apr 15, 2019

/retest

@wgliang
Copy link
Member

left a comment

LGTM. But we must also ensure that Parallelize is not called by others. It may also be a good idea to remove the deprecated statement and keep it.
I will leave lgtm to @sttts

@wojtek-t

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Apr 16, 2019

/lgtm
/approve

@k8s-ci-robot

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Apr 16, 2019

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: danielqsj, wojtek-t

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 /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit f44d04c into kubernetes:master Apr 16, 2019

20 checks passed

cla/linuxfoundation danielqsj authorized
Details
pull-kubernetes-bazel-build Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-bazel-test Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-conformance-image-test Skipped.
pull-kubernetes-cross Skipped.
pull-kubernetes-dependencies Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-100-performance Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-csi-serial Skipped.
pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-device-plugin-gpu Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-storage-slow Skipped.
pull-kubernetes-godeps Skipped.
pull-kubernetes-integration Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-kubemark-e2e-gce-big Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-local-e2e Skipped.
pull-kubernetes-node-e2e Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-typecheck Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-verify Job succeeded.
Details
pull-publishing-bot-validate Skipped.
tide In merge pool.
Details
@cheftako

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Apr 16, 2019

/sig cloud-provider

@cheftako

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Apr 16, 2019

I think we need to start having a better policy for handling deprecated APIs than just its major version bump to client-go so we can delete it 1 quarter later. Also no references in K/K is an increasingly poor signal as to usage. Most of our cloud providers are NOT is K/K and hopefully soon none of the cloud providers will be in K/K. Given that most cloud providers are running about two releases behind, this implies that the API will have changed a quarter before the user reasonably has a chance to object.

globervinodhn added a commit to globervinodhn/kubernetes that referenced this pull request Apr 17, 2019

Merge pull request kubernetes#76595 from danielqsj/pa
clean the deprecated func Parallelize

Add missing node.address != "" condition in tests

It turns out to be a frequent bug that is revealed when nodes don't have
external IP addresses. In the test we assume that in such case there
won't be any addresses of type 'NodeExternalIp', which is invalid. In
such case there will be an address of type 'NodeExternalIP', but with
the empty 'Address' field.

Ref. kubernetes#76374

    pick 77edb49 New E2E proposal to validate that all the pods of the job are deleted once job is deleted
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.