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

remove check for downloadrequest #5440

Closed

Conversation

cleverhu
Copy link
Contributor

Thank you for contributing to Velero!

Please add a summary of your change

remove check for downloadrequest

Does your change fix a particular issue?

Fixes #3126

Please indicate you've done the following:

  • Accepted the DCO. Commits without the DCO will delay acceptance.
  • Created a changelog file or added /kind changelog-not-required as a comment on this pull request.
  • Updated the corresponding documentation in site/content/docs/main.

Signed-off-by: cleverhu <shouping.hu@daocloud.io>
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Oct 12, 2022

Codecov Report

Merging #5440 (ef7d851) into main (b5b4db2) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #5440   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   40.62%   40.62%           
=======================================
  Files         236      236           
  Lines       20449    20449           
=======================================
  Hits         8308     8308           
  Misses      11532    11532           
  Partials      609      609           

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

Copy link
Contributor

@reasonerjt reasonerjt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm, thanks

if updated.Name != created.Name {
return
}

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm not quite sure I understand the relationship between this check and the issue referenced. The issue seems to be about adding fieldSelector support for CRDs, but where is Velero's use of field selectors dependent on the above check?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

According to the pr #3004 (comment),

Pretty sure we can actually remove these checks now. However, let's not in this PR :)

There is a need to clean up the code.

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 a forgotten child issue.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I saw that. But I'm still unclear how these things are related. I don't doubt that this is likely unnecessary now, but I'm just not seeing how the change referenced there relates to whether or not we need this. How is this check related to the field selectors changed referenced in http://issue.k8s.io/51046

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Dec 20, 2022

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

@stale stale bot added the staled label Dec 20, 2022
@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Jan 5, 2023

Closing the stale issue.

@stale stale bot closed this Jan 5, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Remove check for if updated.Name != created.Name on downloadrequest code
4 participants