Assume v2 store is always not nil #19695
Conversation
|
Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request. |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: serathius 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 |
|
/retest |
|
/retest |
| @@ -34,10 +34,6 @@ func TestAddRemoveMember(t *testing.T) { | |||
| c.AddMember(newTestMember(18, nil, "node18", nil), true) | |||
| c.RemoveMember(18, true) | |||
|
|
|||
| // Skipping removal of already removed member | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks like this test was totally incorrectly written?! It dependent on fact that v2store was not set at all.
|
/retest |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files
... and 24 files with indirect coverage changes @@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #19695 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 68.76% 68.89% +0.12%
==========================================
Files 421 421
Lines 35852 35847 -5
==========================================
+ Hits 24655 24695 +40
+ Misses 9773 9731 -42
+ Partials 1424 1421 -3 Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
|
/retest |
Signed-off-by: Marek Siarkowicz <[email protected]>
|
/retest |
|
/retest |
|
For release-3.6, I'd like to keep it as it's. For main branch, I suggest to cleanup v2store after 3.6.0 is released, to make the backport (main -> release-3.6) easier. |
|
SG |
|
PR needs rebase. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
|
@ahrtr any progress with v3.6 release? |
I didn't find know any case where during server lifecycle v2store would be nil. I have a sad suspicion that this condition was introduced just for testing.
Would like to introduce hard assumption to v2 not being nil to ensure that it is properly tested and we are 100% sure that when we move to v3 storage the v2 is not used.