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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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
Voting config exclusions should work with absent nodes #50836
Voting config exclusions should work with absent nodes #50836
Changes from 4 commits
c3d4615
7881e7b
39eb2a1
c3eb5a1
ad41573
b085c2c
57cbc47
e08a8a1
d325123
bede9a0
fb337f2
5e28294
49f749c
a174c7c
2d37e5c
0fb29c3
aaa0f89
02a3533
53f133c
5fe180e
0f6dd6f
b0d0a97
5c7a226
c6fbce8
fcd3912
a2e6247
ccf6c73
2a01d70
6d6353e
99a584d
89ab437
fd64f4b
51f74bf
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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 constructor is only used in tests, and it looks like we could migrate all of those tests over to using node names instead of node descriptions. Some of them would also be neater if we used a varargs:
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 we migrate these tests now to use node names instead of descriptions, I'm a bit concerned that we may not have tests to prove that the changes are still backward compatible and don't have bugs that may break logic based on nodeDescriptions, before it is fully migrated to nodeIds / nodeNames. What do you think?
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.
Sorry, you're right, I didn't quite mean "all" these tests. We should comprehensively test the different kinds of node resolution by strengthening
AddVotingConfigExclusionsRequestTests
. The other tests can move over to node names without loss of coverage IMO.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.
Make sense.
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 isn't resolved yet?
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.
Sorry missed this earlier. Done in commit 02a3533
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.
You removed this useful constructor in 02a3533 and added a lot of noise to the tests as a result. Could you follow my suggestion above instead?
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.
Sorry when I re-read this thread I somehow got the wrong idea that this constructor need to be removed. I reverted that commit and tried again in commit 5c7a226. Could you let me know if this looks good?
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.
Maybe just the master-eligible 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.
Done.
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.
Sorry a question just came up when I looked at this again. When we resolve by nodeId, we use ALL existing nodes to check if it exists, not just the master-eligible ones. Shall we keep this behavior the same for resolving by node name as well?
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'll open a new comment thread on the newly-moved code.