Fix logic bug while checking available LSSDs for RAIDing for Data Cache#1993
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
size/S
| availableLssds := slices.Filter(nil, unRaidedLssds, func(e string) bool { | ||
| return slices.Contains(LSSDsWithEmptyMountPoint, e) | ||
| availableLssds := slices.Filter(nil, allLssds, func(e string) bool { | ||
| return slices.Contains(LSSDsWithEmptyMountPoint, e) && !slices.Contains(raidedLssds, e) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you add a comment on what we are filtering and what cases will that cater to
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I thought there's already a comment in the original version?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For long term, we need some unit test coverage for these steps. :/
|
/lgtm |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
k8s-ci-robot
added
release-note
|
/cherry-pick release-1.17 |
|
@Sneha-at: once the present PR merges, I will cherry-pick it on top of DetailsIn response to this:
Instructions 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-sigs/prow repository. |
|
/approve |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: hungnguyen243, sunnylovestiramisu 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 |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
approved
|
@Sneha-at: new pull request created: #1994 DetailsIn response to this:
Instructions 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-sigs/prow repository. |
5 participants
What type of PR is this?
What this PR does / why we need it:
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: