-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 879
fix: improve log on provisioner daemon started with pk #15588
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
19 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
995a046
feat(provisioners) - add endpoint to fetch tags associated to a key u…
defelmnq 2ca6c91
rename function
defelmnq c67d322
linter
defelmnq 911a47d
linter
defelmnq 1a019bb
generate doc
defelmnq c629f07
changes endpoint to return all pk details
defelmnq 54437f2
generate doc
defelmnq 8eeffb1
work on tests
defelmnq 960084d
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into api-endpoint-provisio…
defelmnq 3aa81ed
work on improving tag logs for provisioner start
defelmnq ebcf687
merge main
defelmnq 0cff661
Work on tags for provisioner daemon
defelmnq d4472a2
details golint
defelmnq ee0fef6
change tags variable
defelmnq 703668b
change tags variable
defelmnq 9e0a2d3
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into client-provisioners-tags
defelmnq b5ff465
pre-allocate map
defelmnq 7ea193f
add missing test for failing case
defelmnq 08ab032
improve map allocation
defelmnq File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Work on tags for provisioner daemon
- Loading branch information
commit 0cff661caf991c2c2ef83c6fdfd47bd8ff78ae0c
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Are there any sad-cases that we could be testing here?
Is there a test already (sorry, being lazy) which already checks that if a provisioner key is not defined then it will not display the tags?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We could add a test to validate what happen in case of the
client.GetProvisionerKey
failing - I've just done it.Otherwise the logic should not be impacted and the endpoint itself seems pretty much well tested.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not really understanding the point of
NoProvisionerKeyFound
. The purpose of this PR is to add changes to tags which are logged, but AFAICS you're not looking at the outputted logs? Does the provisioner fail to start in this case?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah that's exactly it - I am open to the behavior we want to apply here but globally if we can not contact the backend / retrieve the key , I returned and error and did not continued to start the provisioner.
We can instead just output an error and continue as if nothing happened - but the log will be the same as of now (without the tags)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Cool, no need to change the behaviour - I was just confirming what the intent was for this test.