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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

🌱 Audit patch withOwnedConditions #11396

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 11, 2024
Merged

🌱 Audit patch withOwnedConditions #11396

merged 1 commit into from
Nov 11, 2024

Conversation

fabriziopandini
Copy link
Member

What this PR does / why we need it:

/area provider/core

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added area/provider/core Issues or PRs related to the core provider cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. labels Nov 11, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. label Nov 11, 2024
sbueringer
sbueringer reviewed Nov 11, 2024
View reviewed changes
internal/controllers/machinehealthcheck/machinehealthcheck_controller.go
@@ -300,7 +307,18 @@ func (r *Reconciler) reconcile(ctx context.Context, logger logr.Logger, cluster
}
errList := []error{}
for _, t := range append(healthy, unhealthy...) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not new with this PR, but I'm really confused why we are patching all Machines twice (if I'm reading this correctly)

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

My current understanding is that we are patching here only if remediation is not allowed (and we patch both unhealthy and healthy machines).

The other two patch machines are for when remediation is allowed, one for healthy machines, the other for unhealthy.

But if you want we can take a deeper look together

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Let's take a look together later. To me it looks like some of these patches are always no-ops

@sbueringer
Copy link
Member

/lgtm
/approve

/hold
Up to you. This PR is only a step in the right direction. I'm just confused about the current state of the MHC controller

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Nov 11, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Nov 11, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: 4cc30970faf17d5547a3c9e7e8df4ea04be060b8

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: sbueringer

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

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Nov 11, 2024
@fabriziopandini
Copy link
Member Author

/hold cancel
(we can look into your question async, it seems unrelated from this change)

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Nov 11, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit 9b37a3b into kubernetes-sigs:main Nov 11, 2024
21 checks passed
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added this to the v1.9 milestone Nov 11, 2024
@fabriziopandini fabriziopandini deleted the audit-patch-withOwnedConditions branch November 13, 2024 14:24
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@sbueringer sbueringer sbueringer left review comments

@chrischdi chrischdi Awaiting requested review from chrischdi

@enxebre enxebre Awaiting requested review from enxebre

Assignees

@sbueringer sbueringer

Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. area/provider/core Issues or PRs related to the core provider cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. lgtm "Looks good to me", 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
Milestone
v1.9
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@fabriziopandini @sbueringer @k8s-ci-robot