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

🌱 syncer vw: add API definition logging #2780

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Feb 13, 2023

Conversation

ncdc
Copy link
Member

@ncdc ncdc commented Feb 10, 2023

Trying to figure out kcp-dev/contrib-tmc#53

@ncdc ncdc changed the title syncer vw: add API definition logging 🙈 syncer vw: add API definition logging Feb 10, 2023
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot requested review from shawn-hurley and sttts February 10, 2023 21:30
@ncdc ncdc changed the title 🙈 syncer vw: add API definition logging 🌱 syncer vw: add API definition logging Feb 10, 2023
ncdc added 2 commits February 10, 2023 17:42
Signed-off-by: Andy Goldstein <andy.goldstein@redhat.com>
Fix bug in IndexSyncTargetsByExports where it was trying to fall back to
the SyncTarget's path if a reference to an APIExport had an empty path,
but instead of checking the path, it was accidentally checking the name.

Also clean up index-related code.

Signed-off-by: Andy Goldstein <andy.goldstein@redhat.com>
@ncdc ncdc force-pushed the deflake-upsyncer-pv branch from 4b01d1b to 993f42b Compare February 10, 2023 22:45
return []string{client.ToClusterAwareKey(clusterName.Path(), reconcilerapiexport.TemporaryComputeServiceExportName)}, nil
}

keys := make([]string, 0, len(synctarget.Spec.SupportedAPIExports))
for _, export := range synctarget.Spec.SupportedAPIExports {
if len(export.Export) == 0 {
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

FYI @davidfestal @sttts I'm pretty sure this is a bug, right?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

looks like, yes

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

There is a chance this is the root cause of #2762

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I agree it seems a bug that might be related to the mentioned issue.

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Feb 13, 2023
@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Feb 13, 2023

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: davidfestal

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Feb 13, 2023
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit b505b8a into kcp-dev:main Feb 13, 2023
@kcp-ci-bot kcp-ci-bot added the size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. label Nov 23, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants