-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 102
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
NO-ISSUE: Fix auto VIPs allocation on local Nutanix flow #2423
NO-ISSUE: Fix auto VIPs allocation on local Nutanix flow #2423
Conversation
@eliorerz: This pull request explicitly references no jira issue. In response to this:
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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: eliorerz 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 |
@@ -66,6 +66,10 @@ def get_ingress_and_api_vips(self): | |||
"ingress_vips": self._entity_config.ingress_vips, | |||
} | |||
|
|||
elif self._entity_config.vip_dhcp_allocation is True: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
elif self._entity_config.vip_dhcp_allocation is True: | |
else: |
should be enough?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nope, we need to differ True, from False from None.
else
in this case will include the None
case
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
can we add some doc at the beginning of the function to describe the 3 cases? I think it would help to understand what we try to achieve
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I can elaborate more if needed
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yeah, it's just because I find this structure a bit misleading to read:
def f(my_bool):
if my_bool==true:
return
if my_bool==false
return
... more code here because my_bool is none...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@adriengentil I added a function documentation, LMK if that is OK
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
perfect, thanks! Just a typo.
08f2da3
to
907d6b1
Compare
@eliorerz: The following tests failed, say
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. 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. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
2) vip_dhcp_allocation is set to True: No need to provide API and Ingress VIP, return None. | ||
3) vip_dhcp_allocation is not being set at all and its value is equal to None: In this case, search free IPs | ||
and set them as VIPs. The behavior is the same as vip_dhcp_allocation = False but getting the IPs first. | ||
Note that (3) is supposed to happen only locally due to the face that vip_dhcp_allocation is set in CI to some |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Note that (3) is supposed to happen only locally due to the face that vip_dhcp_allocation is set in CI to some | |
Note that (3) is supposed to happen only locally due to the fact that vip_dhcp_allocation is set in CI to some |
Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity. Mark the issue as fresh by commenting If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /lifecycle stale |
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. |
Stale issues rot after 30d of inactivity. Mark the issue as fresh by commenting If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /lifecycle rotten |
Rotten issues close after 30d of inactivity. Reopen the issue by commenting /close |
@openshift-bot: Closed this PR. In response to this:
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. |
This changes will only take place when running nutanix test locally - because that
vip_dhcp_allocation
is always set to false in nutanix CI./cc @adriengentil @danmanor