Navigation Menu

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

Cluster resource provider incorrectly determines node type? #476

Closed
pauldmccann opened this issue Feb 9, 2018 · 4 comments
Closed

Cluster resource provider incorrectly determines node type? #476

pauldmccann opened this issue Feb 9, 2018 · 4 comments
Labels

Comments

@pauldmccann
Copy link

pauldmccann commented Feb 9, 2018

Hi,
I believe there is an error on line 259 of cluster.rb

currently it is using the following to determine what the cluster node type should be:
var_cluster_node_type = parse_cluster_nodes_string(new_resource.cluster_nodes).each { |node| node['name'] == var_node_name }.first['type'] # ~FC039

I believe it should be using .select. Right now, all nodes are using the nodetype of the first node in the list.
var_cluster_node_type = parse_cluster_nodes_string(new_resource.cluster_nodes).each { |node| node['name'] == var_node_name }.first['type'] # ~FC039

@michaelklishin
Copy link
Member

Yes, the each seems suspicious. Note that all nodes cannot be RAM ones, so this issue may be deeper that it seems.

@michaelklishin
Copy link
Member

@pauldmccann so it's in the cluster node type change action. Please submit a PR that corrects it. It should be a lower risk change than I expected at first.

@michaelklishin michaelklishin changed the title RAM Nodes vs Disc Nodes Cluster resource provider incorrectly determines node type? Feb 9, 2018
@pauldmccann
Copy link
Author

pauldmccann commented Feb 10, 2018 via email

@michaelklishin
Copy link
Member

We believe #477 addressed this at least somewhat. The entire logic in that provider needs to be revisited.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants