-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 268
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
Add a visibility API endpoint for fetching pending workloads in a Local Queue #1365
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for kubernetes-sigs-kueue canceled.
|
Hi @PBundyra. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. 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. |
/assign @mimowo |
/ok-to-test |
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.
Generally LGTM, couple nits, yet to review the e2e test
I've manually tested RBACs, and they seem to work well |
charts/kueue/templates/rbac/pending_workloads_CQ_viewer_role.yaml
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
9ee157f
to
11db7fa
Compare
/assign @alculquicondor |
charts/kueue/templates/rbac/pending_workloads_LQ_viewer_role.yaml
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
charts/kueue/templates/rbac/pending_workloads_LQ_viewer_role.yaml
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
/assign @mwielgus |
/lgtm |
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: 3516af411872fefe0ecba20653eb4f979f2664d0
|
/retest |
/release-note-edit
|
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.
Generally, lgtm
}) | ||
}) | ||
|
||
ginkgo.It("Should allow fetching information about position of pending workloads from different LocalQueues", func() { |
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.
Can we move this and "Should allow fetching information about position of pending workloads from different LocalQueues from different Namespaces" to integration tests?
I'd like to make e2e lightweight as much as possible.
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.
Currently, integration tests for the visibility server are under development. I definitely agree with the idea of keeping e2e as lightweight as possible, but I suggest keeping them as they are until we have integration tests ready.
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.
Yea, @PBundyra already had one attempt to add integration tests, but it proved to be challenging, because it requires setting up kubeconfig / certificates for communication between the main API server and the visibility extension. Also, there is no good example, because the metrics-server only uses e2e tests.
So, we went with e2e tests until the challenges with integration tests are figured out.
Also, we put an effort into running the tests as quickly as possible, in particular, we don't use the 5s sleep
.
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.
Thanks for the clarification. Introducing integration tests seems to be hard work. So we can work on these follow-ups.
Still LGTM, please squash. |
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.
@PBundyra Thanks for this great and valuable contribution :)
/lgtm
/approve
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: 181eb85d3e351b4528b865f032bf231df15ef572
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: PBundyra, tenzen-y 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 |
I'm ok without squash. The prow automatically will squash commits. |
/lgtm |
/release-note-edit
|
What type of PR is this?
/kind feature
/kind api-change
What this PR does / why we need it:
This PR continues the development of KEP#168-2
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Special notes for your reviewer:
I have manually tested RBAC.
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?