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

Adding support for multitag #71

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 6, 2016
Merged

Conversation

jupierce
Copy link
Contributor

@jupierce jupierce commented Oct 4, 2016

Adding exec function for card:
https://trello.com/c/Yl4qomsw/878-5-additional-jenkins-plugin-enhancement-requests-from-github

ptal @gabemontero @bparees

Enabling the following forms:

  1. 1 destination stream and 1 destination tag (i.e. single tag applies to single stream)
  2. 1 destination stream and N destination tags (i.e. all tags apply to the same stream)
  3. 1 destination tag and N destination streams (i.e. all streams will get the same tag)
  4. N destination streams and N destination tags (i.e. each index will be combined to form a unique stream:tag combination)

@jupierce jupierce force-pushed the addmultitag branch 3 times, most recently from 1b6e932 to 59849c1 Compare October 4, 2016 20:42
Copy link
Contributor

@gabemontero gabemontero left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

A couple of questions vs. direct comments, and yep, the deprecation of those methods was on my unofficial to do list

}

IImageStream destIS = null;
for ( int retries = 10; retries > 0; retries-- ) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

curious on the 10 retries here .... unlike some of the pod related operations discussed in the oc exec pull, I've not encountered similar timing issues with tagging images in the past. Did it seem like it stemmed from the multi-tagging, where the code was creating multiple tags in rapid succession?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Precisely that. Modifying the resource repeatedly caused a 403 unless I pulled the resource again.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Gotcha - thanks for the confirm.

return false;
}

for ( int retries2 = 10; retries2 > 0; retries2-- ) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ah .. you just added this one while I was reviewing .... same curiosity on what exactly you are seeing in your testing and if the theory I posted in the comment above is on the right track or not

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That one was added more out of caution. I did not actually witness it fail. I'm fine to remove it if you think it unnecessary.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah a get should be OK vs. the update ... let's remove / have a little less clutter.

Copy link
Contributor

@gabemontero gabemontero left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Other than the one clean up item, I'm sure you did this, but just to be sure, did you test tagging where src and destination where in separate projects, where you added the necessary roles / tokens?

Otherwise, IGTM.

}

IImageStream destIS = null;
for ( int retries = 10; retries > 0; retries-- ) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Gotcha - thanks for the confirm.

return false;
}

for ( int retries2 = 10; retries2 > 0; retries2-- ) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah a get should be OK vs. the update ... let's remove / have a little less clutter.

@gabemontero
Copy link
Contributor

Oh, just noticed the default test failure after my review comment. We'll need to look into that as well prior to merging.

@gabemontero
Copy link
Contributor

Looks like the extended test set up failed @jupierce - see if this is a known flake or not in openshift/origin

@jupierce
Copy link
Contributor Author

jupierce commented Oct 5, 2016

@gabemontero I hand tested multi-project/multi-token configs. Looks good so far, but will need to implement extended tests to be sure those work on new 1->N and N->N variants.

@gabemontero
Copy link
Contributor

@jupierce roger that - sounds good.

@gabemontero
Copy link
Contributor

[test]

@jupierce
Copy link
Contributor Author

jupierce commented Oct 5, 2016

rebasing for conflict

@jupierce
Copy link
Contributor Author

jupierce commented Oct 6, 2016

@gabemontero PR test flake has been addressed.

@gabemontero
Copy link
Contributor

Cool - thanks for the confirm @jupierce

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Justin Pierce notifications@github.com
wrote:

@gabemontero https://github.com/gabemontero PR test flake has been
addressed.


You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#71 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADbadGe7B1YVThLUN7niYvfwAdWj1fFjks5qxQ_KgaJpZM4KOHIi
.

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