🌱 Migrate from Requeue to RequeueAfter in kcp #13028
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
cncf-cla: yes
|
This PR is currently missing an area label, which is used to identify the modified component when generating release notes. Area labels can be added by org members by writing Please see the labels list for possible areas. 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. |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
size/M
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Mix them without separating.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I just intentionally added these in the PR merged yesterday. Please keep them (please see the godocs I explicitly added to the nolint statements)
(please revert all changes to this file, this util will soon'ish also be used in other controller / repos. It has to handle Requeue appropriately and must have the corresponding unit test coverage for it)
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: neolit123 The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
approved
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I just intentionally added these in the PR merged yesterday. Please keep them (please see the godocs I explicitly added to the nolint statements)
(please revert all changes to this file, this util will soon'ish also be used in other controller / repos. It has to handle Requeue appropriately and must have the corresponding unit test coverage for it)
|
/hold Until the findings are resolved |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
do-not-merge/hold
sivchari
force-pushed
the
migrate-kcp-requeue-to-requeueafter
branch
from
952c490 to
be6829d
Compare
|
I addressed review findings. |
|
@sivchari Looks like unit tests are failing :) |
sbueringer
left a comment
sbueringer
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Only reviewed the prod code. One finding for that
| }) | ||
|
|
||
| return ctrl.Result{Requeue: true}, nil | ||
| return ctrl.Result{}, nil // No need to requeue here. Machine deletion above triggers reconciliation. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| return ctrl.Result{}, nil // No need to requeue here. Machine deletion above triggers reconciliation. | |
| return ctrl.Result{RequeueAfter: time.Millisecond}, nil // Technically there is no need to requeue here. Machine deletion above triggers reconciliation. But we have to return a non-zero Result so reconcile above returns. |
My bad. We have to requeue here otherwise the reconcile func one level higher does not return which it absolutely has to
(using 1 ms so we don't get an additional requeue on top of the requeue we get from Machine deletion. With e.g. 10s we might get an additional requeue)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I also missed it. Thanks!
Signed-off-by: sivchari <[email protected]>
sivchari
force-pushed
the
migrate-kcp-requeue-to-requeueafter
branch
from
be6829d to
d92adfc
Compare
4 participants
What this PR does / why we need it:
Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in
fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):Part of #12272