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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

labellers: use unique field managers #3078

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 26, 2023
Merged

labellers: use unique field managers #3078

merged 1 commit into from
Oct 26, 2023

Conversation

stevekuznetsov
Copy link
Member

It seems like using the same field manager for two distinct fields leads to the label set oscillating between the two states instead of converging to the union of both requests.

Description of the change:

Motivation for the change:

Architectural changes:

Testing remarks:

Reviewer Checklist

  • Implementation matches the proposed design, or proposal is updated to match implementation
  • Sufficient unit test coverage
  • Sufficient end-to-end test coverage
  • Bug fixes are accompanied by regression test(s)
  • e2e tests and flake fixes are accompanied evidence of flake testing, e.g. executing the test 100(0) times
  • tech debt/todo is accompanied by issue link(s) in comments in the surrounding code
  • Tests are comprehensible, e.g. Ginkgo DSL is being used appropriately
  • Docs updated or added to /doc
  • Commit messages sensible and descriptive
  • Tests marked as [FLAKE] are truly flaky and have an issue
  • Code is properly formatted

@stevekuznetsov
labellers: use unique field managers
cd323f6 
It seems like using the same field manager for two distinct fields leads
to the label set oscillating between the two states instead of
converging to the union of both requests.

Signed-off-by: Steve Kuznetsov <[email protected]>
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot requested review from benluddy and dinhxuanvu October 26, 2023 17:22
@stevekuznetsov stevekuznetsov added approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. labels Oct 26, 2023
@stevekuznetsov stevekuznetsov added this pull request to the merge queue Oct 26, 2023
tmshort
tmshort approved these changes Oct 26, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@tmshort tmshort left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm

@openshift-ci
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Oct 26, 2023

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: stevekuznetsov, tmshort

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 /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

Merged via the queue into operator-framework:master with commit fcbb7fe Oct 26, 2023
15 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@tmshort tmshort tmshort approved these changes

@benluddy benluddy Awaiting requested review from benluddy

@dinhxuanvu dinhxuanvu Awaiting requested review from dinhxuanvu

Assignees

@tmshort tmshort

Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@stevekuznetsov @tmshort