-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 450
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
[new-component] Operator OpAMP Bridge Service #1339
[new-component] Operator OpAMP Bridge Service #1339
Conversation
…nto 1318-remote-config-service
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.
A few questions/thoughts 🙂 very excited to learn more about this.
var multiErr error | ||
for key, file := range config.Config.GetConfigMap() { | ||
if len(key) == 0 || len(file.Body) == 0 { | ||
continue |
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 do we continue? If there's a partial success, the config hash is no longer accurate to what's being provided. Is that okay?
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.
this was a choice by me to say that it's okay to have a partial success, i agree the configHash would not be accurate though. Should we just throw away everything in this case?
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.
I'm not sure. 😕 It seems difficult to make this function an atomic operation.
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.
Just asking: should it be an E2E test created ?
@jaronoff97 it would be great to have your feedback on OpAMP spec and OpAMP Go as you work on this capability of the operator. Please feel free to open issues in OpAMP repos or ping me if you have any questions. |
* Begin the journey * Some hacks to functionality * Fix create bug, getting prepped for refactor * Some reorganization and cleaning, added tests * Add deletion and dockerfile * Add logic for specifying allowed components * Linting, CI, header * Makefile CI * Added comments, created an object for use by the applied keys map * Fix makefile, update to use require * IMports * updated from comments * Improved logging, working dockerfile * Rename the whole thing * Change service name * Update from feedback
* Begin the journey * Some hacks to functionality * Fix create bug, getting prepped for refactor * Some reorganization and cleaning, added tests * Add deletion and dockerfile * Add logic for specifying allowed components * Linting, CI, header * Makefile CI * Added comments, created an object for use by the applied keys map * Fix makefile, update to use require * IMports * updated from comments * Improved logging, working dockerfile * Rename the whole thing * Change service name * Update from feedback
* Begin the journey * Some hacks to functionality * Fix create bug, getting prepped for refactor * Some reorganization and cleaning, added tests * Add deletion and dockerfile * Add logic for specifying allowed components * Linting, CI, header * Makefile CI * Added comments, created an object for use by the applied keys map * Fix makefile, update to use require * IMports * updated from comments * Improved logging, working dockerfile * Rename the whole thing * Change service name * Update from feedback
Implements part 1 of #1318
A few things before this is ready: