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

fix: Use cached and non-cached clients in backup/restore controllers #1156

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 21, 2021

Conversation

mmorhun
Copy link
Contributor

@mmorhun mmorhun commented Oct 21, 2021

Signed-off-by: Mykola Morhun [email protected]

What does this PR do?

Uses two k8s clients in backup and restore controllers: caching client and non-caching client.

Screenshot/screencast of this PR

N/A

What issues does this PR fix or reference?

A step towards eclipse-che/che#20647

How to test this PR?

  1. Run chectl server:deploy --installer=operator --platform=openshift
  2. Run chectl server:backup
  3. Run chectl server:restore --snapshot-id=latest
  4. Check Che is ready and works

PR Checklist

As the author of this Pull Request I made sure that:

Reviewers

Reviewers, please comment how you tested the PR when approving it.

@openshift-ci
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Oct 21, 2021

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: AndrienkoAleksandr, mmorhun, tolusha

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found 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

@AndrienkoAleksandr AndrienkoAleksandr changed the title Use cached and non-cached clients in backup/restore controllers fix: Use cached and non-cached clients in backup/restore controllers Oct 21, 2021
@mmorhun mmorhun merged commit cb17fce into main Oct 21, 2021
@mmorhun mmorhun deleted the che-20647-1 branch October 21, 2021 13:49
@che-bot che-bot added this to the 7.39 milestone Oct 21, 2021
@l0rd
Copy link
Contributor

l0rd commented Oct 26, 2021

@mmorhun @tolusha shouldn't we decrease the operator memory limit now that this PR has been merged? If not how can we justify the need for 5GB?
Update: sorry I just saw your comment that it's just one step forward the solution...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants