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
Apply changes to service resource #159
Apply changes to service resource #159
Conversation
@ironcladlou: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1805177, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state. The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker. 3 validation(s) were run on this bug
In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
cc @Miciah |
3d896e3
to
126a8ba
Compare
I still need to do e2e testing of this. /hold |
@ironcladlou: No Bugzilla bug is referenced in the title of this pull request. In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
/hold cancel @Miciah want to go ahead and merge this? |
/hold Wait for #159 and then rebase |
Does |
It doesn't get persisted — you're right, if we want to keep the general diff/apply logic I should remove serviceTopology entirely from the PR for now. |
c2dd802
to
a9d8d33
Compare
/hold cancel @Miciah I rebased and updated the goal of this PR. PTAL. |
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.
Might be better to split the rollback into a discrete commit, if possible.
LGTM bar the additional explicit test case to add.
Leaving to @Miciah to tag as he had more comments first time round.
expect: true, | ||
}, | ||
{ | ||
description: "if .spec.publishNotReadyAddresses changes", |
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.
Maybe add a test for field Spec.ClusterIP
as we call that out explicitly in serviceChanged()
?
// Preserve fields that the API, other controllers, or user may have
// modified.
updated.Spec.ClusterIP = current.Spec.ClusterIP
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.
Done
The feature gate to support this isn't enabled yet.
Add support for applying changes to the service resource. Since the service topology feature gate isn't yet enabled, and add TODOs to re-introduce support when the gate is finally enabled.
a9d8d33
to
915c08f
Compare
Done |
/lgtm |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: frobware, ironcladlou 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 |
Add support for applying changes to the service resource. Roll back 8ae4b02
since service topology feature gate isn't yet enabled, and add TODOs to
re-introduce support when the gate is finally enabled.
Part of, but not a complete fix for https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1805177 because the service topology feature gate isn't enabled. Without that gate, service.spec.toplogyKey won't be persisted.