feat: status chan

[LeoLiuYan]

cc @cpuguy83

[LeoLiuYan]

This pull request add NodeControllerReady and PodControllerReady function which expose in cli, is that ok? @cpuguy83

[cpuguy83]

Can we instead expose the underlying controllers directly?

e.g. cmd.NodeController() and cmd.PodController(), and the readiness can be checked from there.

[LeoLiuYan]

Can we instead expose the underlying controllers directly?

e.g. cmd.NodeController() and cmd.PodController(), and the readiness can be checked from there.

That's may be not appropriate since PodCtroller in virtual-kubelet include a sync.Mutex field. So, should expose a interface when create PodController or NodeController?

[cpuguy83]

The mutex is not exposed, it is private to the package.

[LeoLiuYan]

The mutex is not exposed, it is private to the package.

As the lint says, "copylocks: assignment copies lock value" error, because of sync.Mutex.

[cpuguy83]

That's because you have it copying a value instead of passing a pointer.

[LeoLiuYan]

That's because you have it copying a value instead of passing a pointer.

Already fix this issue. @cpuguy83

[cpuguy83]

The root command is what creates the node and pod controller. There shouldn't be any need to pass that down.

[LeoLiuYan]

The root command is what creates the node and pod controller. There shouldn't be any need to pass that down.

But the root command not return controllers, so pass a pointer when we create the command, and then assign the value to the pointer.

[cpuguy83]

What I'm saying is, let's have the command provide accessors for those controllers.

[LeoLiuYan]

Simplify the implements, remove point of controllers, just provide accessors. @cpuguy83

[feiskyer]

Close since there's no activity for more than 5 months. Feel free to open a new PR if you think the changes are still required.