relax volume lifecycle checks by default#293
relax volume lifecycle checks by default#293k8s-ci-robot merged 1 commit intokubernetes-csi:masterfrom
Conversation
The recently introduced "still in use" check revealed a bug in Kubernetes (kubernetes/kubernetes#101911). While the check itself is correct, enabling it would cause a lot of test flakes. Therefore the check has to be disabled until all Kubernetes versions that we test against are fixed.
75554c0 to
30b4e6a
Compare
6aac6a1 to
30b4e6a
Compare
|
@pohly: The following test failed, say
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR. DetailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
|
/lgtm |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: pohly, xing-yang The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
1e81e752 Merge pull request kubernetes-csi#293 from andyzhangx/patch-9 4dc18505 fix: upgrade to go1.25.7 to fix CVE-2025-61727 b60b9a50 Merge pull request kubernetes-csi#292 from andyzhangx/patch-8 0e4e2ed0 Update Go version from 1.25.5 to 1.25.6 to fix CVE git-subtree-dir: release-tools git-subtree-split: 1e81e752e87e027311be882279eac9e292705aa5
What type of PR is this?
/kind failing-test
What this PR does / why we need it:
The recently introduced "still in use" check revealed a bug in
Kubernetes (kubernetes/kubernetes#101911). While
the check itself is correct, enabling it would cause a lot of test
flakes. Therefore the check has to be disabled until all Kubernetes
versions that we test against are fixed.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Related-to kubernetes/kubernetes#101911
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: