-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 890
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
api: define API for MultiClusterService #4290
Conversation
5d3498f
to
bdaffc7
Compare
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #4290 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 52.00% 52.01% +0.01%
==========================================
Files 242 242
Lines 23993 23984 -9
==========================================
- Hits 12478 12476 -2
+ Misses 10834 10828 -6
+ Partials 681 680 -1
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
// +optional | ||
Range ExposureRange `json:"range,omitempty"` | ||
DiscoveryStrategy ServiceDiscoveryStrategy `json:"discoveryStrategy,omitempty"` |
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.
-
In the proposal of MCS, there is no concept like
DiscoveryStrategy
. -
This
Range
is used for the propagation range ofServiceImport
, it has nothing to do withEndpointSlice
. So what's your reason for deleting this field?
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.
-
https://github.com/karmada-io/karmada/blob/master/docs/proposals/service-discovery/README.md There is annotation:
discovery.karmada.io/strategy
, I move it to the spec -
This field is not used, @XiShanYongYe-Chang told me. If we want to utilize the
ServiceImport/ServiceExport
in the future, we can use the same fields. PropagateServiceImport
toClientLocations
,ServiceExport
toServerLocations
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.
We used this field in another proposal and it needs to be synchronized there after the current proposal is merged.
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.
@chaunceyjiang Are you suggesting not introducing this field this time as it hasn't been designed yet, and we can take the default behavior( that is RemoteAndLocal
) during implementation?
I agree with it.
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.
Are you suggesting not introducing this field this time as it hasn't been designed yet, and we can take the default behavior( that is RemoteAndLocal) during implementation?
+1
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.
Why not remove it this time?
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.
cc @chaunceyjiang for conforming
eff274f
to
6b73315
Compare
Just a reminder, the chart lint is failing. |
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.
Some other options for the field names:
ServerSideLocations
vs. ClientSideLocations
ProvisionedByClusters
vs. ConsumedByClusters
0f36fc1
to
23abfd4
Compare
Echo from the workflow:
Seems timeout when uninstall Helm release. Let's give it another try. |
I tried it in my local env, it works fine. |
Signed-off-by: jwcesign <[email protected]>
Is this the main reason?
It only takes 11s to pull the cfssl. |
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
/approve
Please cc me if unrelated tests fail.
[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 |
What type of PR is this?
/kind api-change
What this PR does / why we need it:
Referring to #4287
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Part of #4292
Special notes for your reviewer:
none
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: