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

Properly initialize nested struct in influxdb test #2766

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 18, 2020

Conversation

JensErat
Copy link
Contributor

If actually running the influxdb tests (not included in Makefile), a compiler error occured ("cannot use promoted field in struct literal of type") because direct access to promoted fields is only allowed in assignments, not when initializing structs (at least, unless golang/go#9859 gets implemented).

The tests run fine otherwise, as soon as the required tag is added.

Jens Erat [email protected], Daimler TSS GmbH, imprint

If actually running the influxdb tests (not included in Makefile), a
compiler error occured ("cannot use promoted field in struct literal of
type") because direct access to promoted fields is only allowed in
assignments, not when initializing structs (at least, unless
golang/go#9859 gets implemented).

Signed-off-by: Jens Erat <[email protected]>
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi @JensErat. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a google member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

@iwankgb
Copy link
Collaborator

iwankgb commented Dec 17, 2020

Looks extremely close to #2704 .

@JensErat
Copy link
Contributor Author

Indeed. I actually grepped through the issues, but looks like I did not make it to the PRs. Do you want me to close this PR, or shall we wait whether @kwisniewski98 responds? I don't really care for this PR, it just blocked me from other work. :)

@iwankgb
Copy link
Collaborator

iwankgb commented Dec 17, 2020

@JensErat let's see what maintainer says :)

@bobbypage, when may we expect pending PRs being merged? Some of them were file more than 3 months ago.

@iwankgb
Copy link
Collaborator

iwankgb commented Dec 17, 2020

/ok-to-test

@bobbypage
Copy link
Collaborator

bobbypage commented Dec 18, 2020

LGTM, let's merge this and close the other PR #2704

@bobbypage bobbypage merged commit 0c54631 into google:master Dec 18, 2020
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.

4 participants