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

handle StatusCheck Events implementation logic #2929

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Oct 1, 2019

Conversation

tejal29
Copy link
Contributor

@tejal29 tejal29 commented Sep 24, 2019

Relates to #176

Description

User facing changes

n/a

Before

n/a
After

n/a

Next PRs.

  • Actually call these events in pkg/skaffold/deploy/status_check.go

Submitter Checklist

These are the criteria that every PR should meet, please check them off as you
review them:

  • [ X] Includes unit tests
  • [n/a ] Mentions any output changes.
  • [ n/a] Adds documentation as needed: user docs, YAML reference, CLI reference.
  • [ na/] Adds integration tests if needed.

See the contribution guide for more details.

Double check this list of stuff that's easy to miss:

Reviewer Notes

  • The code flow looks good.
  • Unit test added.
  • User facing changes look good.

Release Notes

Describe any user facing changes here so maintainer can include it in the release notes, or delete this block.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 24, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #2929 into master will increase coverage by 0.22%.
The diff coverage is 97.53%.

Impacted Files Coverage Δ
pkg/skaffold/event/event.go 91.73% <97.53%> (+3.14%) ⬆️

@@ -33,6 +33,8 @@ const (
Complete = "Complete"
Failed = "Failed"
Info = "Information"
Started = "Started"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We could use "In Progress" instead of "Started" (since In Progress implies that a process has Started) and "Complete" instead of "Succeeded"? That way we have consistency with other events. WDYT?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@tejal29 tejal29 Sep 26, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

So, I had it "completed" instead of "succeeded" befor to be consistent. But one of the comments from IDE team on the internal doc was to change it to "succeeded" so it goes well with "Failed"

We shd change "completed" to "succeeded" which I can do in another PR.

Regarding "started" to "in progress", there is a delay between when the status check startes and when we receive a first update. Hence I added Started for the first event and subsequent events are "in Progress" with a text update on how many resources are pending

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The other alternative is to have a In progress with message "2/2 deployment are still pending" instead of strated

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sounds good, could we open an issue to change "completed" to "succeeded"?

Personally I'm leaning towards having "In Progress" with the message you said above, just to match, but I don't feel super strongly about it.

@tejal29 tejal29 merged commit 145a667 into GoogleContainerTools:master Oct 1, 2019
@balopat balopat changed the title handle StatusCheck Events implementation logic. handle StatusCheck Events implementation logic Oct 10, 2019
@tejal29 tejal29 deleted the implementation branch April 15, 2021 07:35
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