[v18] feat: List bot instances version and hostname sort#60522
[v18] feat: List bot instances version and hostname sort#60522nicholasmarais1158 wants to merge 2 commits intobranch/v18from
Conversation
* Add version and hostname indexes to cache
* Add `ListBotInstancesV2` rpc and use request options
* Add v2 bot instance list endpoint
* Use v2 endpoint in web UI
* Pass signal through to support aborting requests
* Fix comment typo
* Rename util func
* Deprecate `ListBotInstances` rpc
* Encode hostname in cache key
* Address pre-release sorting in version numbers
* Rename bot instance cache utils
* Fix lint deprecation warnings
* Extract filter fields to message
* Replace `fmt.Sprintf("%06d", ...)`
* Update invalid sort field error
* Fallback to v1 endpoint if possible
* Use `strcase` for case-insensitive compare
* Backend results are filtered by bot name so no need to re-filter in `MatchBotInstance`
* Revert "Replace `fmt.Sprintf("%06d", ...)`"
This reverts commit 2fbd797.
nicholasmarais1158
added
machine-id
no-changelog
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As previously mentioned in #59374 (comment), this backport must include #60558 or there will be a compatibility break in ListBotInstancesV2.
@espadolini I didn't backport these together to avoid requiring admin approval for the large PR. I'm pretty confident I can manage the process to ensure one isn't released without the other. I have a series of backport PRs that all relate to this work, and they're all tagged |
In this case I think it's worth getting an admin approval. If this feature is large enough that it requires an admin approval, then there is risk that backporting them separately could result in something being missed or merged together incorrectly. By combining the feature in it's entirety we are also able to run through manual tests of the feature prior to its inclusion in a release. For example, see #60492. It is large, but each commit is from a separate PR which makes tracking the changes easy to follow. There is also a documented manual test plan that validate nothing went awry during the backport process. I suggest we follow this same process here. |
Thanks @rosstimothy. I will follow this approach. |
|
Superseded by #60761. |
4 participants
Backport #59263 to branch/v18
Updates: #57994