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

[64][PlacementStrategy] Expand and replace Timeout #100

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 13, 2023
Merged

[64][PlacementStrategy] Expand and replace Timeout #100

merged 1 commit into from
Sep 13, 2023

Conversation

dhaiducek
Copy link
Member

@dhaiducek dhaiducek commented Sep 8, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Replace Timeout with MinSuccessTime, ProgressDeadline, and MaxFailedPercent.

Notes:

  • There was a request to rename SuccessDeadline to ProgressDeadline and, not seeing opposition to it, I made the change

serngawy
serngawy reviewed Sep 8, 2023
View reviewed changes
enhancements/sig-architecture/64-placementStrategy/README.md Show resolved Hide resolved
enhancements/sig-architecture/64-placementStrategy/README.md Outdated
// Default is that no failures are tolerated.
// +kubebuilder:validation:Maximum=100
// +optional
MaxFailedPercent uint8 `json:"maxFailedPercent,omitempty"`
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I believe the name should be maxFailures and better to have type as intstr.IntOrString to allow percentage and numbers with validation as below.
// +kubebuilder:validation:Pattern="^((100|[0-9]{1,2})%|[0-9]+)$"

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Would that be similar to ClustersPerDecisionGroup where it's either a number of clusters or a percentage of clusters? If so, that sounds good to me.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

yes, similar to ClustersPerDecisionGroup

@dhaiducek dhaiducek force-pushed the 64-timeout-updates branch 3 times, most recently from 8fe4a3c to bee0abf Compare September 8, 2023 21:32
@dhaiducek
[64][PlacementStrategy] Expand and replace Timeout
5a0fcc6 
Replace `Timeout` with `MinSuccessTime`, `ProgressDeadline`, and
`MaxFailedPercent`.

Signed-off-by: Dale Haiducek <19750917+dhaiducek@users.noreply.github.com>
@serngawy
Copy link
Member

Sounds good
/LGTM

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm label Sep 13, 2023
@qiujian16
Copy link
Member

/approve

@openshift-ci
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Sep 13, 2023

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: dhaiducek, qiujian16

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

@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit 98c4b43 into open-cluster-management-io:main Sep 13, 2023
1 check passed
@dhaiducek dhaiducek deleted the 64-timeout-updates branch September 13, 2023 19:41
@dhaiducek dhaiducek mentioned this pull request Sep 15, 2023
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@serngawy serngawy serngawy left review comments

@deads2k deads2k Awaiting requested review from deads2k

@qiujian16 qiujian16 Awaiting requested review from qiujian16

Assignees

@serngawy serngawy

Labels
approved lgtm
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@dhaiducek @serngawy @qiujian16 @openshift-merge-robot