-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 83
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
Label selection for pods/processGroups #1981
Conversation
82caec8
to
3d2ece0
Compare
Result of fdb-kubernetes-operator-pr on Linux CentOS 7
|
Result of fdb-kubernetes-operator-pr on Linux CentOS 7
|
3d2ece0
to
93750e7
Compare
Github doesn't want me to edit the comment today but for testing: |
93750e7
to
3f7e304
Compare
Result of fdb-kubernetes-operator-pr on Linux CentOS 7
|
Result of fdb-kubernetes-operator-pr on Linux CentOS 7
|
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.
LGTM 👍 Thanks! As a next step we should remove the useProcessGroupID
option.
Result of fdb-kubernetes-operator-pr on Linux CentOS 7
|
Description
This PR adds the ability to select pods/processGroups by label selection. This still requires a cluster name to be provided as I felt that would reduce the risk of accidental selection.
It also improves the error message of the
cordon
command for when no pods are found to be running on a node.This solves #597
Type of change
Please select one of the options below.
Discussion
Are there any design details that you would like to discuss further?
Testing
t
Documentation
Did you update relevant documentation within this repository?
If this change is adding new functionality, do we need to describe it in our user manual?
If this change is adding or removing subreconcilers, have we updated the core technical design doc to reflect that?
If this change is adding new safety checks or new potential failure modes, have we documented and how to debug potential issues?
Follow-up
Are there any follow-up issues that we should pursue in the future?
Does this introduce new defaults that we should re-evaluate in the future?