CLOUDP-65312: arbitrary statefulset configuration #118
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
added 23 commits
June 30, 2020 12:13
…s-operator into CLOUDP-65312_arbitrary_statefulset_configuration
…s-operator into CLOUDP-65312_arbitrary_statefulset_configuration
…s-operator into CLOUDP-65312_arbitrary_statefulset_configuration
…s-operator into CLOUDP-65312_arbitrary_statefulset_configuration
|
Issue blocked until we figure out issues with evergreen e2e tests |
|
@fabianlindfors can you make sure the tests run please? |
rodrigovalin
approved these changes
Jul 31, 2020
|
evergreen retry |
added 2 commits
July 31, 2020 13:47
|
evergreen retry |
1 similar comment
|
evergreen retry |
fabianlindfors
deleted the
CLOUDP-65312_arbitrary_statefulset_configuration
branch
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
WIP until I verify that the tests run fine on evg as well, then ready for review
After investigation and tries, I decided to proceed with the same logic used in the enterprise operator for merging specs, as it seems the most reliable and clear.
Unit tests are, as well, taken from the enterprise operator.
More e2e tests are most likely wanted, but outside the scope of this PR. Will open a ticket to track this if we think it would be a good idea.
All Submissions:
closes #XXXXin your comment to auto-close the issue that your PR fixes (if such).closes #61