-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
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
🌱 use providerID string as-is #8577
🌱 use providerID string as-is #8577
Conversation
cc5cbba
to
92a100a
Compare
/assign @sbueringer This PR implements more or less #8505 (comment) If we want to go in this direction, this would supercede #8505 (I'd close it). |
I like it! |
d23f0d1
to
8ae89db
Compare
/lgtm |
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: 0448c6c18dd7b82b906031bab7667df300d45bc5
|
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.
last nit, otherwise lgtm from my side
8ae89db
to
c62a7a1
Compare
c62a7a1
to
2e75b4f
Compare
Thx! /lgtm /assign @vincepri @fabriziopandini |
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: a52012b55f5925fa76d073098cfc70d8c6d0d415
|
2e75b4f
to
f62294e
Compare
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.
/approve
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: vincepri 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 |
/lgtm |
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: f607c8ed68597b75566a4f7789adb601bd303230
|
@vincepri @sbueringer what do we think about cherry-picking this change into v1.4? |
+1. Also to v1.3 if there's demand |
🤞 /cherry-pick release-1.4 |
@jackfrancis: new pull request created: #8594 In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
yay I just got 10 minutes of extra time! |
/area machine |
What this PR does / why we need it:
This PR updates code flows that use a strongly typed, constructed
ProviderID
object to represent a CAPI-opinionated version of a cloud provider's node providerID: instead of wrapping the raw providerID in a CAPI object, we now simply evaluate machine-node affinity by simply comparing the providerID strings for equality.As an exercise in best practices, the existing
ProviderID
type definition is kept in place and marked for deprecation. This is to allow this change to be backported to existing minor releases so that cloud providers who are blocked on the current CAPI-opinionatedProviderID
validations can make forward progress towards CAPI adoption.Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in
fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)
format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):Fixes #8485