Skip to content
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

Prevent duplicity post of creating/replacing elyra secret #3120

Merged

Conversation

DaoDaoNoCode
Copy link
Member

@DaoDaoNoCode DaoDaoNoCode commented Aug 22, 2024

JIRA: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHOAIENG-10719

Description

Add a ref to prevent simultaneously creating/replacing the elyra secret, and rewrite the hook a little bit to make it more readable.

How Has This Been Tested?

  1. Create a project
  2. Configure a pipeline server
  3. Make sure there is no 409 conflict error message in the console when creating ds-pipeline-config secret

Test Impact

N/A, needs e2e live test for that which #3028 will cover.

Request review criteria:

Self checklist (all need to be checked):

  • The developer has manually tested the changes and verified that the changes work
  • Testing instructions have been added in the PR body (for PRs involving changes that are not immediately obvious).
  • The developer has added tests or explained why testing cannot be added (unit or cypress tests for related changes)

If you have UI changes:

  • Included any necessary screenshots or gifs if it was a UI change.
  • Included tags to the UX team if it was a UI/UX change.

After the PR is posted & before it merges:

  • The developer has tested their solution on a cluster by using the image produced by the PR to main

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot requested review from mturley and ppadti August 22, 2024 21:31
@pnaik1
Copy link
Contributor

pnaik1 commented Aug 28, 2024

Tested locally
no 409 conflict, I see only one post request for the secret
/lgtm

Copy link
Member

@Gkrumbach07 Gkrumbach07 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

/approve

this looks good.

@Gkrumbach07
Copy link
Member

/approve
/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm label Sep 4, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Sep 4, 2024

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: Gkrumbach07

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 /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 4, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 61.11111% with 7 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 85.13%. Comparing base (3e40d40) to head (0432780).
Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
...concepts/pipelines/context/useManageElyraSecret.ts 61.11% 7 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3120      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   85.17%   85.13%   -0.04%     
==========================================
  Files        1251     1251              
  Lines       27436    27443       +7     
  Branches     7280     7283       +3     
==========================================
- Hits        23369    23364       -5     
- Misses       4067     4079      +12     
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
...concepts/pipelines/context/useManageElyraSecret.ts 71.79% <61.11%> (-0.09%) ⬇️

... and 3 files with indirect coverage changes


Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 3e40d40...0432780. Read the comment docs.

@openshift-merge-bot openshift-merge-bot bot merged commit 7c1a2d9 into opendatahub-io:main Sep 4, 2024
8 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants