-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4k
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 vpa-up.sh script by removing duplicate recommender #6151
Conversation
…ss-yamls.sh. Tweak that script so that it can accept recommender-externalmetrics as an argument.
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.
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: jbartosik, raywainman 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'll verify that the local testcase works, sorry for the troubles. |
@lallydd I took a look at your PR and I think it should still work with these changes but definitely take a look if you can. |
I just pulled, rebuilt, and tested. Local testing still works fine, thanks. |
…elease-1.0-branch Cherry pick #6151 to VPA release 1.0 branch
Fix vpa-up.sh script by removing duplicate recommender from the vpa-process-yamls.sh. Tweak that script so that it can accept recommender-externalmetrics as an argument if someone wants to run that separately by having the script look in both the
deploy
ande2e
directories.Having both recommenders in this list breaks vpa-up.sh, see #6141.
What type of PR is this?
/kind bug
What this PR does / why we need it:
This fixes a small bug when running
vpa-up.sh
, which is a step in the VPA release process.See #6141 for full details.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #6141
Special notes for your reviewer:
I've taken a look at the PR that introduced this change and I don't think this should break anything but would love to confirm with @lallydd.
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?
Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.: