Closed chizhg closed 1 year ago
/retest
/assign @BenTheElder @MushuEE Could you help review this PR? Thanks!
Change more fields to be public to use it as a library
Are these fields reasonable to export ...? A cursory glance shows some pretty internal stuff (like the Cluster index struct)
I don't think this package was intended to be consumed as a library, and we're extremely thin on maintainer time (... I am the sole maintainer now, and I'm maintaining a lot of other things).
It's not useful to print the number of firewall rules deleted, so dropping the calculation and return logic
debugging resource leaks ...?
It's already used as a library - we are using it to implement an internal tool for Anthos, Amit reviewed all the previous PRs and this is changing more fields to be public.
We are also printing the errors, so printing the number of deleted firewall rules feels a bit redundant, but I can add it back if you think it's more desirable.
And sorry for bothering..., I'm now mostly wrapping up stuff and cleaning up some tech debt, so this should be my last change to this repo...
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED
This pull-request has been approved by: chizhg To complete the pull request process, please ask for approval from bentheelder after the PR has been reviewed.
The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
It's already used as a library - we are using it to implement an internal tool for Anthos, Amit reviewed all the previous PRs and this is changing more fields to be public.
I see that a few functions were made public previously.
I probably would have disagreed with this change -- deployer already has a standard public API, but also those changes are not the same as exposing types like the internal cluster index struct.
We are also printing the errors, so printing the number of deleted firewall rules feels a bit redundant, but I can add it back if you think it's more desirable.
I think it's useful to know the number. I don't think it's clearly not useful to know it.
[Bug fix] Boskos release should set the resource state to dirty
This seems like it should really be a separate PR.
For multi-project multi-cluster topology, allow to not specify the project index in the cluster names, in which case the cluster index will be the same as the project index
Have not had time to review this aspect, sorry, currently working on KETTLE outage .. this repo is low-prio bugfix focused right now until we can re-staff.
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs.
This bot triages issues and PRs according to the following rules:
lifecycle/stale
is appliedlifecycle/stale
was applied, lifecycle/rotten
is appliedlifecycle/rotten
was applied, the issue is closedYou can:
/remove-lifecycle stale
/lifecycle rotten
/close
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.
/lifecycle stale
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs.
This bot triages issues and PRs according to the following rules:
lifecycle/stale
is appliedlifecycle/stale
was applied, lifecycle/rotten
is appliedlifecycle/rotten
was applied, the issue is closedYou can:
/remove-lifecycle rotten
/close
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.
/lifecycle rotten
@chizhg: PR needs rebase.
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs.
This bot triages PRs according to the following rules:
lifecycle/stale
is appliedlifecycle/stale
was applied, lifecycle/rotten
is appliedlifecycle/rotten
was applied, the PR is closedYou can:
/reopen
/remove-lifecycle rotten
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.
/close
@k8s-triage-robot: Closed this PR.