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.

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

feature: memory buffer container io backend #625

Merged

Conversation

YaoZengzeng
Copy link
Contributor

@YaoZengzeng YaoZengzeng commented Jan 23, 2018

Signed-off-by: YaoZengzeng [email protected]

1.Describe what this PR did

Now we only support using http to handle container IO.

With this PR, we could use memory buffer (bytes.Buffer in golang) as another backend type to handle container IO.

2.Does this pull request fix one issue?

3.Describe how you did it

4.Describe how to verify it

5.Special notes for reviews

@codecov-io
Copy link

Codecov Report

Merging #625 into master will decrease coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 0%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #625      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   13.36%   13.35%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files          65       65              
  Lines        3599     3602       +3     
==========================================
  Hits          481      481              
- Misses       3068     3071       +3     
  Partials       50       50
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
daemon/mgr/container_types.go 15.87% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
daemon/mgr/container.go 3.79% <0%> (-0.03%) ⬇️

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 c48e28f...7b72796. Read the comment docs.

@allencloud
Copy link
Collaborator

Please add more background in PR description, thanks. @YaoZengzeng

@YaoZengzeng YaoZengzeng added the priority/P1 this is high priority that all maintainers should stop to handle this issue label Jan 23, 2018
@skoowoo
Copy link
Contributor

skoowoo commented Jan 24, 2018

LGTM

@pouchrobot pouchrobot added the LGTM one maintainer or community participant agrees to merge the pull reuqest. label Jan 24, 2018
@allencloud
Copy link
Collaborator

allencloud commented Jan 24, 2018

Actually we wish to know what is the scenario of this feature. For further reason, we encourage specific description which guides others a lot to review code.
Merging this now, maybe next time we could be more strict. 😄

@allencloud allencloud merged commit fe9dd75 into AliyunContainerService:master Jan 24, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
kind/feature LGTM one maintainer or community participant agrees to merge the pull reuqest. priority/P1 this is high priority that all maintainers should stop to handle this issue size/M
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants