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

feat(health): add Rabbitmq topology resource customizations #22066

Open
wants to merge 15 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

fprovencherdrw
Copy link

@fprovencherdrw fprovencherdrw commented Feb 27, 2025

Kept it simple.

There are only 2 defined states (on top of unknown) as per: https://github.com/rabbitmq/messaging-topology-operator/blob/0c910d977b21b4610b789a90e7edfc8ca42d9649/api/v1beta1/conditions.go#L26

Checklist:

  • Either (a) I've created an enhancement proposal and discussed it with the community, (b) this is a bug fix, or (c) this does not need to be in the release notes.
  • The title of the PR states what changed and the related issues number (used for the release note).
  • The title of the PR conforms to the Toolchain Guide
  • I've included "Closes [ISSUE #]" or "Fixes [ISSUE #]" in the description to automatically close the associated issue.
  • I've updated both the CLI and UI to expose my feature, or I plan to submit a second PR with them.
  • Does this PR require documentation updates?
  • I've updated documentation as required by this PR.
  • I have signed off all my commits as required by DCO
  • I have written unit and/or e2e tests for my change. PRs without these are unlikely to be merged.
  • My build is green (troubleshooting builds).
  • My new feature complies with the feature status guidelines.
  • I have added a brief description of why this PR is necessary and/or what this PR solves.
  • Optional. My organization is added to USERS.md.
  • Optional. For bug fixes, I've indicated what older releases this fix should be cherry-picked into (this may or may not happen depending on risk/complexity).

@fprovencherdrw fprovencherdrw requested a review from a team as a code owner February 27, 2025 19:02
Copy link

bunnyshell bot commented Feb 27, 2025

🔴 Preview Environment stopped on Bunnyshell

See: Environment Details | Pipeline Logs

Available commands (reply to this comment):

  • 🔵 /bns:start to start the environment
  • 🚀 /bns:deploy to redeploy the environment
  • /bns:delete to remove the environment

Signed-off-by: Francis Provencher <fprovencher@drw.com>
Signed-off-by: Francis Provencher <fprovencher@drw.com>
Signed-off-by: Francis Provencher <fprovencher@drw.com>
Signed-off-by: Francis Provencher <fprovencher@drw.com>
Signed-off-by: Francis Provencher <fprovencher@drw.com>
Signed-off-by: Francis Provencher <fprovencher@drw.com>
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 27, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Please upload report for BASE (master@55f8a43). Learn more about missing BASE report.
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##             master   #22066   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage          ?   55.84%           
=========================================
  Files             ?      342           
  Lines             ?    57111           
  Branches          ?        0           
=========================================
  Hits              ?    31896           
  Misses            ?    22587           
  Partials          ?     2628           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

fprovencherdrw and others added 3 commits February 27, 2025 16:33
Signed-off-by: Francis Provencher <fprovencher@drw.com>
Signed-off-by: Francis Provencher <fprovencher@drw.com>
if condition.type ~= nil then
if condition.type == "Ready" then
if condition.status ~= nil and condition.reason ~= nil then
if condition.status == "True" and condition.reason == "SuccessfulCreateOrUpdate" then
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can you combine the nested ifs into one, e.g. condition.type ~= nil even seems unnecessary if we check for condition.type == "Ready"?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Indeed, looking at the source code, if a condition is returned, it will have the type, status and reason keys, so no need to "nil check" them.

I removed the nil checks for the condition components.

if condition.type ~= nil then
if condition.type == "Ready" then
if condition.status ~= nil and condition.reason ~= nil then
if condition.status == "True" and condition.reason == "SuccessfulCreateOrUpdate" then
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Same here

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

if condition.type ~= nil then
if condition.type == "Ready" then
if condition.status ~= nil and condition.reason ~= nil then
if condition.status == "True" and condition.reason == "SuccessfulCreateOrUpdate" then
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

And here

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

if condition.type ~= nil then
if condition.type == "Ready" then
if condition.status ~= nil and condition.reason ~= nil then
if condition.status == "True" and condition.reason == "SuccessfulCreateOrUpdate" then
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

And here

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

if condition.type ~= nil then
if condition.type == "Ready" then
if condition.status ~= nil and condition.reason ~= nil then
if condition.status == "True" and condition.reason == "SuccessfulCreateOrUpdate" then
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

And here

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

if condition.type ~= nil then
if condition.type == "Ready" then
if condition.status ~= nil and condition.reason ~= nil then
if condition.status == "True" and condition.reason == "SuccessfulCreateOrUpdate" then
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

And here

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Copy link
Contributor

@andrii-korotkov-verkada andrii-korotkov-verkada left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Please, make ifs less nested (some not commented specifically)

fprovencherdrw and others added 4 commits March 10, 2025 14:07
Signed-off-by: Francis Provencher <fprovencher@drw.com>
Signed-off-by: Francis Provencher <fprovencher@drw.com>
Signed-off-by: Francis Provencher <fprovencher@drw.com>
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.

2 participants