codecov[bot]
commented
2 weeks ago Codecov Report
Attention: Patch coverage is 88.88889% with 2 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.
Project coverage is 42.85%. Comparing base (
94e29e2) to head (e5ff47c). Report is 2 commits behind head on master.
| Files | Patch % | Lines |
|---|---|---|
| pkg/cloudprovider/servicelb.go | 71.42% | 1 Missing and 1 partial :warning: |
Additional details and impacted files
```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #10045 +/- ## ========================================== - Coverage 50.07% 42.85% -7.23% ========================================== Files 158 158 Lines 14032 14041 +9 ========================================== - Hits 7027 6017 -1010 - Misses 5676 6888 +1212 + Partials 1329 1136 -193 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/k3s-io/k3s/pull/10045/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=k3s-io) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [e2etests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/k3s-io/k3s/pull/10045/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=k3s-io) | `36.37% <88.88%> (-10.21%)` | :arrow_down: | | [inttests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/k3s-io/k3s/pull/10045/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=k3s-io) | `19.25% <33.33%> (-17.91%)` | :arrow_down: | | [unittests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/k3s-io/k3s/pull/10045/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=k3s-io) | `16.58% <33.33%> (-0.01%)` | :arrow_down: | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=k3s-io#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
Proposed Changes
Add support for svclb pod PriorityClassName
At this point I would prefer not to add another CLI flag to control the default priorityClassName, but you can override it on a per-service basis via an annotation. The annotation can be set to an empty value if svclb pods for that service should not have a priorityClassName set.
Types of Changes
enhancement
Verification
See linked issue
Testing
Linked Issues
User-Facing Change
Further Comments