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

Add Retry Configs to EgressConfig #258

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Oct 7, 2020
Merged

Add Retry Configs to EgressConfig #258

merged 2 commits into from
Oct 7, 2020

Conversation

pierDipi
Copy link
Member

@pierDipi pierDipi commented Oct 5, 2020

This PR adds retry configs to the contract configuration in preparation
of supporting the delivery spec: #116

Signed-off-by: Pierangelo Di Pilato pierangelodipilato@gmail.com

Part of #116

Proposed Changes

  • Add Retry Configs to EgressConfig

Release Note

- 🧽 Update or clean up current behavior
The data plane contract contains retry configurations.

@googlebot googlebot added the cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CLA. label Oct 5, 2020
@knative-prow-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: pierDipi

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

@knative-prow-robot knative-prow-robot added approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Oct 5, 2020
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 5, 2020 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

Merging #258 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##             master     #258   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     76.30%   76.30%           
  Complexity      170      170           
=========================================
  Files            49       49           
  Lines          1435     1435           
  Branches         46       46           
=========================================
  Hits           1095     1095           
  Misses          271      271           
  Partials         69       69
Flag Coverage Δ Complexity Δ
#java-unittests 76.05% <ø> (ø) 170.00 <ø> (ø)
#unittests ? ?

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update d3eefa5...7bba73d. Read the comment docs.

@pierDipi
Copy link
Member Author

pierDipi commented Oct 5, 2020 •
edited
Loading

The linter checks trailing whitespaces in the Java generated code. 😭

@pierDipi
Copy link
Member Author

pierDipi commented Oct 5, 2020

/retest

@pierDipi
Add Retry Configs to EgressConfig
75d7ab4 
This PR adds Retry Config to the contract configuration in preparation
of supporting the delivery spec: #116

Signed-off-by: Pierangelo Di Pilato <pierangelodipilato@gmail.com>
@pierDipi
Copy link
Member Author

pierDipi commented Oct 5, 2020

/retest

slinkydeveloper
slinkydeveloper reviewed Oct 6, 2020
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@slinkydeveloper slinkydeveloper left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just a question

proto/def/contract.proto Show resolved Hide resolved
@pierDipi
Add comment for no retry case
7bba73d 
Signed-off-by: Pierangelo Di Pilato <pierangelodipilato@gmail.com>
@slinkydeveloper
Copy link
Contributor

Unit test failure is a general flakyness, not related to this one right?

@pierDipi
Copy link
Member Author

pierDipi commented Oct 7, 2020

Yes, micrometer metrics use atomic fields, and they never fail in Prow AFAIK.

@slinkydeveloper
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm

@knative-prow-robot knative-prow-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 7, 2020
@knative-prow-robot knative-prow-robot merged commit 77aab31 into knative-extensions:master Oct 7, 2020
@pierDipi pierDipi deleted the KNATIVE-116-contract-config branch April 14, 2021 21:16
matzew pushed a commit to matzew/eventing-kafka-broker that referenced this pull request May 11, 2022
@aliok @pierDipi
[1.2] Port from upstream: Use host-based routing in KafkaChannel (kna…
e4ab1ce 
…tive-extensions#258)

* Use host-based routing in KafkaChannel

The previous implementation of the KafkaChannel uses host-based
routing.
To upgrade from the previous implementation without a big down-time
we need to use host-based routing in this implementation as well.

Signed-off-by: Pierangelo Di Pilato <pierdipi@redhat.com>

* Add some comments and improve logging

Signed-off-by: Pierangelo Di Pilato <pierdipi@redhat.com>

Co-authored-by: Pierangelo Di Pilato <pierdipi@redhat.com>
This pull request was closed.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@matzew matzew Awaiting requested review from matzew

@slinkydeveloper slinkydeveloper Awaiting requested review from slinkydeveloper

Assignees

@slinkydeveloper slinkydeveloper

Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CLA. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@pierDipi @knative-prow-robot @slinkydeveloper @googlebot