✨ virtualmachinesetresourcepolicy: allow mutability of .spec.clusterModuleGroups #903
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Nevermind, I am an idiot. |
|
@chrischdi I think you will need to also update the webhook's unit/integ tests. |
bryanv
reviewed
Feb 21, 2025
|
Thanks for the prompt responses, I hope this does not make too much noise to you folks. I had it around and thought it might be worth to not double the work / help you out :-) . I will take a look at the tests and the comments next week. |
github-actions
bot
added
size/L
|
I tried to address the findings :-) |
|
Please don't hestitate let me know if you currently have no time for this and want to follow up yourself on it. I'm also okay to help bring this over the finish line :-) |
chrischdi
force-pushed
the
pr-virtualmachinesetresourcepolicy-reconcile-clustermodules
branch
from
690a4b1 to
ffdb04d
Compare
Minimum allowed line rate is |
chrischdi
changed the title
bryanv
reviewed
Feb 27, 2025
| } | ||
| clusterRef, err := vcenter.GetResourcePoolOwnerMoRef(ctx, vimClient, rpMoID) | ||
| if err != nil { | ||
| errs = append(errs, err) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Depending on the error this could lead to deletion of cluster modules that are still actually in use, no?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's right, if
- there's an error getting the resource pool itself
- or the properties collector failed to get the owner property of the resource pool
The clusterRef may be missing.
I'll adjust to in that case don't reconcile cluster modules and return the error instead.
As alternative we could skip only deletion in reconcileClusterModules, but maybe not worth that complexity, what do you think?
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| type fakeClusterModule struct { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
vcsim support for cluster modules is pretty good - and our testing frame makes it pretty easy to hook up vcsim - so I much prefer we use the actual impl
| scheme := runtime.NewScheme() | ||
| _ = vmopv1.AddToScheme(scheme) | ||
|
|
||
| tests := []struct { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For better or worse, we use Ginkgo and this is very go test. DescribeTable is the Ginkgo way to write tests like this
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What does this PR do, and why is it needed?
.spec.clusterModuleGroups.Which issue(s) is/are addressed by this PR? (optional, in
fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):Fixes #
Are there any special notes for your reviewer:
I implemented some changes for CAPV and did take a quick look into this for vm-operator and seemed not to be too hard so I went ahead and implemented this feature.
Please add a release note if necessary: