-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 867
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
Fix the bug in interpreting the replicas of Job #5095
Conversation
Signed-off-by: whitewindmills <jayfantasyhjh@gmail.com>
fe648e0
to
bf9eaf0
Compare
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #5095 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 28.22% 28.22%
=======================================
Files 632 632
Lines 43551 43554 +3
=======================================
+ Hits 12293 12294 +1
- Misses 30362 30364 +2
Partials 896 896
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
/assign |
// For fixed completion count Jobs, the actual number of pods running in parallel will not exceed the number of remaining completions. | ||
// Higher values of .spec.parallelism are effectively ignored. | ||
// More info: https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/workloads/controllers/job/ | ||
completions := ptr.Deref[int32](job.Spec.Completions, replica) |
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.
Indeed. In my local test, when parallelism > completions, only completions number of jobs will be generated.
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.
So, we are trying to address the accuracy issue. Right?
Generally looks good to me, just a question need to confirm.
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.
yes
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
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.
Thanks a lot
/lgtm
ping @RainbowMango |
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.
/approve
I updated the release notes by the way.
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: RainbowMango 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 |
…-#5095-upstream-release-1.10 Automated cherry pick of #5095: Fix the bug in interpreting the replicas of Job
…-#5095-upstream-release-1.8 Automated cherry pick of #5095: Fix the bug in interpreting the replicas of Job
…-#5095-upstream-release-1.9 Automated cherry pick of #5095: Fix the bug in interpreting the replicas of Job
What type of PR is this?
/kind bug
What this PR does / why we need it:
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: