Skip to content

Conversation

@ewolinetz
Copy link
Contributor

@ewolinetz ewolinetz commented Feb 14, 2019

This may look noisy until #81 is merged in

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Feb 14, 2019
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Feb 14, 2019
@ewolinetz ewolinetz force-pushed the eo_refactoring branch 5 times, most recently from f9f322c to 9b703eb Compare February 14, 2019 21:30
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Feb 14, 2019
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files. size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Feb 14, 2019
@richm
Copy link
Contributor

richm commented Feb 17, 2019

/retest

1 similar comment
@richm
Copy link
Contributor

richm commented Feb 18, 2019

/retest

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files. labels Feb 18, 2019
@ewolinetz ewolinetz force-pushed the eo_refactoring branch 2 times, most recently from 4f115fc to 002fca9 Compare February 18, 2019 18:25
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Feb 18, 2019
@ewolinetz ewolinetz force-pushed the eo_refactoring branch 4 times, most recently from 2881745 to d93bb07 Compare February 19, 2019 16:52
@ewolinetz
Copy link
Contributor Author

/test e2e-aws

@ewolinetz
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

@ewolinetz
Copy link
Contributor Author

/test e2e-operator

Copy link
Contributor

@jcantrill jcantrill left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we can still tighten things up but I'm good with a first pass if we want to merge


return []v1.EnvVar{
v1.EnvVar{
Name: "DC_NAME",
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Again in future, maybe we should consider changing this to DEPLOYMENT_NAME since we are not using DC

Value: fmt.Sprintf("cluster=%s", clusterName),
},
v1.EnvVar{
Name: "IS_MASTER",
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Needed?


defaultMasterCPULimit = "100m"
defaultMasterCPURequest = "100m"
defaultCPULimit = "4000m"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

we removed the cpu limit I think in 3.9

@ewolinetz
Copy link
Contributor Author

ewolinetz commented Mar 18, 2019

@ewolinetz
Copy link
Contributor Author

/hold
going to add a fix for https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689762 as part of this


type ElasticsearchStorageSpec struct {
StorageClassName string `json:"storageClassName,omitempty"`
StorageClassName *string `json:"storageClassName,omitempty"`
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this is part of addressing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689762
this may break CLO when we specify a storageClassName -- will create a follow up fix

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

will need to do a dep ensure -update for this

@ewolinetz
Copy link
Contributor Author

/hold cancel

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Mar 18, 2019
Copy link
Contributor

@jcantrill jcantrill left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There is a lot here and I think more to refactor via smaller chunks. Assuming there are no regressions I would like to get this in and then work from there.

@ewolinetz
Copy link
Contributor Author

/test e2e-aws

@ewolinetz
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

3 similar comments
@richm
Copy link
Contributor

richm commented Mar 19, 2019

/retest

@richm
Copy link
Contributor

richm commented Mar 20, 2019

/retest

@richm
Copy link
Contributor

richm commented Mar 20, 2019

/retest

Copy link
Contributor

@jcantrill jcantrill left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Mar 20, 2019
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: ewolinetz, jcantrill

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Details Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
  • OWNERS [ewolinetz,jcantrill]

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

@ewolinetz
Copy link
Contributor Author

/hold

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Mar 20, 2019
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit b8b3e00 into openshift:master Mar 20, 2019
@ewolinetz ewolinetz deleted the eo_refactoring branch December 1, 2020 17:09
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants