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

Remove usless test and resolved comments #16000

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Sep 6, 2017

Conversation

simo5
Copy link
Contributor

@simo5 simo5 commented Aug 26, 2017

Fixes #15815

@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot added the size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. label Aug 26, 2017
@simo5 simo5 requested a review from enj August 26, 2017 18:15
@bparees
Copy link
Contributor

bparees commented Aug 26, 2017

/unassign

@simo5
Copy link
Contributor Author

simo5 commented Aug 28, 2017

/retest

// the policy cache taking time to react
// try to add Valerie to a non-existent role, looping until it is done.
// If a Not Found error is raised, simply retry as this is likely due to
// the role cache taking time to react
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think in general this wait no longer makes any sense (there is no role cache).

if err := addValerie.AddRole(); err != nil {
    t.Fatalf("unexpected error: %v", err)
}

@deads2k any thoughts?

@@ -318,7 +319,7 @@ func TestAuthorizationResolution(t *testing.T) {
roleWithGroup.Name = "with-group"
roleWithGroup.Rules = append(roleWithGroup.Rules, authorizationapi.PolicyRule{
Verbs: sets.NewString("list"),
Resources: sets.NewString("builds"), // TODO we may need to track these down
Resources: sets.NewString("builds"),
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@deads2k do we care that this used to be Resources: sets.NewString("resourcegroup:builds")?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@deads2k do we care that this used to be Resources: sets.NewString("resourcegroup:builds")?

For the test? No.

@dobbymoodge
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

@simo5
Copy link
Contributor Author

simo5 commented Aug 31, 2017

Still seeing this flake even if it has been closed #14575
/retest

@simo5
Copy link
Contributor Author

simo5 commented Sep 6, 2017

@deads2k can you comment on @enj's question ?

@enj
Copy link
Contributor

enj commented Sep 6, 2017

/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Sep 6, 2017
@openshift-merge-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: enj, simo5

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these OWNERS Files:

You can indicate your approval by writing /approve in a comment
You can cancel your approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Sep 6, 2017
@openshift-merge-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 15885, 15973, 16000)

@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit 971d942 into openshift:master Sep 6, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants