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

Update ncproxy compute agent cache map #1126

Conversation

katiewasnothere
Copy link
Contributor

This PR removes the global version of the compute agent cache in favor of a map shared by the grpc and ttrpc service with synchronization using a read write lock.

Signed-off-by: Kathryn Baldauf [email protected]

@katiewasnothere katiewasnothere requested a review from a team as a code owner August 24, 2021 22:20
@katiewasnothere
Copy link
Contributor Author

@kevpar btw

// GRPC service exposed for use by a Node Network Service.
type grpcService struct{}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Side note: I would love if in the future we can find better names for the "network agent facing" and "shim facing" services than grpcService and ttrpcService.

cmd/ncproxy/ncproxy.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@katiewasnothere katiewasnothere force-pushed the container_id_to_compute_agent_sync branch from 705cd57 to 8ce13ee Compare August 24, 2021 23:11
cmd/ncproxy/ncproxy.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@katiewasnothere katiewasnothere force-pushed the container_id_to_compute_agent_sync branch from 8ce13ee to 3af4cb6 Compare August 24, 2021 23:42
@katiewasnothere
Copy link
Contributor Author

@kevpar and @dcantah are we okay to merge this? PRs on tests will come in the future.

@kevpar
Copy link
Member

kevpar commented Aug 25, 2021

@kevpar and @dcantah are we okay to merge this? PRs on tests will come in the future.

Have you done manual testing to validate this works as expected? I think we should rely on that until we have automated test cases added.

@katiewasnothere
Copy link
Contributor Author

Have you done manual testing to validate this works as expected? I think we should rely on that until we have automated test cases added.

@kevpar yep! I also updated the test network agent in #1067 that I used for manual testing.

Copy link
Member

@kevpar kevpar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants