Upgrade controller runtime to v0.17.5 and k8s api to v0.29.5#4160
Upgrade controller runtime to v0.17.5 and k8s api to v0.29.5#4160fluid-e2e-bot[bot] merged 9 commits intofluid-cloudnative:masterfrom
Conversation
|
@xliuqq Please fix the code conflict. Thanks. |
|
/test fluid-e2e |
|
|
/test fluid-e2e |
|
@cheyang the e2e-test was passed. |
xliuqq
force-pushed
the
upgrade
branch
2 times, most recently
from
dac7f8a to
4935c99
Compare
|
/test fluid-e2e |
|
/test fluid-e2e |
xliuqq
force-pushed
the
upgrade
branch
2 times, most recently
from
c34002f to
b99d1ef
Compare
Signed-off-by: xliuqq <xlzq1992@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: xliuqq <xlzq1992@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: xliuqq <xlzq1992@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: xliuqq <xlzq1992@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: xliuqq <xlzq1992@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: xliuqq <xlzq1992@gmail.com>
|
/test fluid-e2e |
|
/retest |
Signed-off-by: xliuqq <xlzq1992@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: xliuqq <xlzq1992@gmail.com>
| LeaderElectionID: "juicefs.data.fluid.io", | ||
| Port: 9443, | ||
| NewCache: juicefsctl.NewCache(scheme), | ||
| Cache: juicefsctl.NewCache(), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How about using juicefsctl.NewCacheOption()?
| SelectorsByObject: selectors, | ||
| }) | ||
| return cache.Options{ | ||
| ByObject: map[client.Object]cache.ByObject{ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we need to add scheme?
return cache.Options{
Scheme: scheme,
ByObject: map[client.Object]cache.ByObject{
cronJobKey: {
Label: labels.SelectorFromSet(labels.Set{
common.JobPolicy: common.CronPolicy,
}),
},
},
}There was a problem hiding this comment.
no need to, as the Scheme field in ctrl.Options will used to create the default Client and Cache.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How about setting scheme in cache option to keep consistency with previous version? My thought is to make it easy for maintenance. WDYT？
|
|
||
| import ( | ||
| "os" | ||
| metricsserver "sigs.k8s.io/controller-runtime/pkg/metrics/server" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could you please move 'metricsserver "sigs.k8s.io/controller-runtime/pkg/metrics/server"' near 'sigs.k8s.io/controller-runtime/pkg/client'?
|
|
||
| func newBitMapAllocator(pr *net.PortRange, log logr.Logger) (BatchAllocatorInterface, error) { | ||
| alloc, err := portallocator.New(*pr, func(max int, rangeSpec string) (allocator.Interface, error) { | ||
| alloc, err := portallocator.New(*pr, func(max int, rangeSpec string, offset int) (allocator.Interface, error) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please add TODO for passing offset value. Thanks.
Signed-off-by: xliuqq <xlzq1992@gmail.com>
|
|
/lgtm |
| TypeMeta: metav1.TypeMeta{ | ||
| Kind: "StatefulSet", | ||
| APIVersion: "apps/v1", | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why is this necessary in new version of controller-runtime?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seems related to kubernetes-sigs/controller-runtime#2633. If removed, test cases will fail.
|
/lgtm |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: cheyang The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
@xliuqq Thanks for your great contribution! |
4 participants
Ⅰ. Describe what this PR does
Upgrade controller runtime to v0.17.5 and k8s api to v0.29.5.
Ⅱ. Does this pull request fix one issue?
fixes #XXXX
Ⅲ. List the added test cases (unit test/integration test) if any, please explain if no tests are needed.
Ⅳ. Describe how to verify it
Ⅴ. Special notes for reviews