Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Refactor EIP Operator #348
Refactor EIP Operator #348
Changes from all commits
1a0bd40
b78ee77
c0b92c3
e7b9df0
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
Large diffs are not rendered by default.
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.
can we continue to add all versions of duplicate deps here? it makes it easier to track when things change
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.
we can but cargo deny was yelling at me, maybe I need to adjust my configuration?
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 fairly sure we can get rid of these duplicates with some pretty easy selective downgrades, which i think would be preferable if possible
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.
It's definitely possible, I spent like 2 hours fighting with versions and updating code after updates. I don't really care to hop down that rabbit hole again.
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 pattern we're moving to here where we just update the mutable status variable is a bit dangerous because if we exit early at any point (with the various uses of
?
, etc) we will lose the updates we have made, which is i think wrong because we are doing things like updating the status after making real changes (disassociating eips, etc). i think we want to make sure to save the status field changes back to the kubernetes api whenever we update this.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.
yeah this is a fair point. We should patch the resource every time we make a durable change. - code has been updated
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.
is
ref
actually necessary here?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.
At one point my LSP told me to do it so I did it. I'm not sure if it's still needed, but nothing is complaining.
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 is the logic here different for pods and nodes?
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.
if matched_nodes.is_empty() {
maybe?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 should be unreachable, as kubernetes does not allow multiple pods with the same name.
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.
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.
If the node and ip are none then we don't want to modify our association or create a new association.
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.
Yes, it is correct that it is not associated. The phrasing of the log message makes it seem like it is associated and that that is correct, which isn't what we are trying to indicate. We are trying to indicate both that it is not associated, and that that is the correct state.