-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 592
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
set trigger status appropriately if they do not have broker #3144
Conversation
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'm wondering if the test TestTriggerNoBroker
should be part of the conformance test suite instead of the e2e test suite.
#2704 can extend it to cover the entire scenario.
// If shouldLabelNamespace is set to true this test annotates the testing namespace so that a default broker is created. | ||
// It then binds many triggers with different filtering patterns to the broker created by brokerCreator, and sends | ||
// different events to the broker's address. | ||
// Finally, it verifies that only the appropriate events are routed to the subscribers. |
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.
It looks different than this 😄
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.
lol, yeah, thanks, fixed :)
return false, err | ||
} | ||
if ready := trigger.Status.GetTopLevelCondition(); ready != nil { | ||
if ready.Status == corev1.ConditionFalse && ready.Reason == "BrokerDoesNotExist" { |
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 the reason is passed as a parameter this test is a valid conformance test for the control-plane conformance.
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 mean, we could run multiple tests validations for failures? Yes, good point. I'm down to make that change, but I'd prefer to do that in a followup to make sure we get this error case handled into the release :)
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 mean, the broker conformance spec doesn't force using BrokerDoesNotExist
as a reason for the trigger to not become ready if there is no broker;
if the test has the reason as param implementors can reuse this test without changing the reason they're using (maybe they're using BrokerNotFound
rather than BrokerDoesNotExist
).
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.
Yep, that makes sense. As I mentioned above I'm all for it, but would prefer to do that in a followup? Ok with you?
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.
Of course 😄
pkg/reconciler/trigger/trigger.go
Outdated
// it still would not get reconciled. | ||
tt := t.DeepCopy() | ||
tt.Status.MarkBrokerFailed("BrokerDoesNotExist", "Broker %q does not exist or there is no matching BrokerClass for it", tt.Spec.Broker) | ||
_, te := r.eventingClientSet.EventingV1beta1().Triggers(tt.Namespace).UpdateStatus(tt) |
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 don't think you want to call update status here, that should be done in the calling method right?
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.
Of course :( Thanks!!
The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
|
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.
/lgtm
/approve
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: n3wscott, vaikas The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
Fixes #2996
Proposed Changes
Release Note
Docs