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

switch build logs to use client, not storage #16705

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 6, 2017

Conversation

deads2k
Copy link
Contributor

@deads2k deads2k commented Oct 5, 2017

switches the build logs and build binary instantiate to use clients instead of RESTStorage.

/assign bparees
/king bug

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. label Oct 5, 2017
@openshift-merge-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: deads2k

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these OWNERS Files:

You can indicate your approval by writing /approve in a comment
You can cancel your approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Oct 5, 2017
_, err = watch.Until(timeout, w, func(event watch.Event) (bool, error) {
obj, ok := event.Object.(*buildapi.Build)
if !ok {
return false, fmt.Errorf("received unknown object while watching for builds: %T", obj)
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@bparees just in case this doesn't resolve the problem.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

does obj actually get assigned if the type assertion fails?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

fixed

Copy link
Contributor

@bparees bparees left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

one golang question, otherwise lgtm.

@deads2k deads2k added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 5, 2017
@bparees bparees added the kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug. label Oct 5, 2017
@bparees
Copy link
Contributor

bparees commented Oct 5, 2017

@deads2k @jupierce next question is do we backport this to stage to try to get stage out of the ditch?

@bparees
Copy link
Contributor

bparees commented Oct 5, 2017

oh. you already did.

@bparees
Copy link
Contributor

bparees commented Oct 5, 2017

/retest

1 similar comment
@bparees
Copy link
Contributor

bparees commented Oct 5, 2017

/retest

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

openshift-ci-robot commented Oct 5, 2017

@deads2k: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun them all:

Test name Commit Details Rerun command
ci/openshift-jenkins/origin/unit d0ed003 link /test origin-ut
ci/openshift-jenkins/origin/verify d0ed003 link /test origin-verify
ci/openshift-jenkins/extended_builds d0ed003 link /test extended_builds

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.

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/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

@openshift-merge-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Automatic merge from submit-queue.

@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit a7fd246 into openshift:master Oct 6, 2017
openshift-merge-robot added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 6, 2017
Automatic merge from submit-queue.

switch build logs to use client, not storage

fixes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1499016

stage pick of #16705

/assign bparees
/assign jupierce

did I get the right spot?  What's the bugzilla number?
}

return observed, true, nil
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@deads2k @gabemontero if i'm reading this correctly, we now return "observed, true, nil" if we hit the timeout, whereas previously we returned "observed, false, nil".

and presumably if we hit a timeout, "observed" will be nil.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

(hm, maybe not, seems like watch.Until is supposed to be returning an error if it times out)

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ah, but we used to always return the input build if we timed out, now we return nil.

@deads2k deads2k deleted the build-06-client branch January 24, 2018 14:35
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants