-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 40.9k
Move ClusterEvent type to staging repo, leaving some functions (that contain logic internal to scheduler) in kubernetes/kubernetes #132190
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
Move ClusterEvent type to staging repo, leaving some functions (that contain logic internal to scheduler) in kubernetes/kubernetes #132190
Conversation
This issue is currently awaiting triage. If a SIG or subproject determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the The 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. |
Hi @ania-borowiec. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a kubernetes member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. 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. |
/cc Maciej Skoczeń Kensei Nakada |
/cc @macsko @sanposhiho |
/ok-to-test |
|
||
// Constants for GVKs. | ||
// | ||
// CAUTION for contributors: When you add a new EventResource, you must register a new one to allResources. |
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.
Now allResource
is in a different package, so you could add a path where to find it.
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.
Done here and updated other comments
/approve Leaving second review to @sanposhiho |
c9c0d8e
to
4b2d8d8
Compare
4b2d8d8
to
0cf1654
Compare
@sanposhiho FYI: this one's also rebased and ready for review, thanks! |
…contain logic internal to scheduler) in kubernetes/kubernetes apply review comment and fix linter warning
0cf1654
to
14d3dc5
Compare
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.
/lgtm
/approve
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: 7808191417fb08c79a095796203f070c523c7ead
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: ania-borowiec, macsko, sanposhiho 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 |
/label tide/merge-method-squash |
…contain logic internal to scheduler) in kubernetes/kubernetes (kubernetes#132190) * Move ClusterEvent type to staging repo, leaving some functions (that contain logic internal to scheduler) in kubernetes/kubernetes apply review comment and fix linter warning * update-vendor.sh * update doc comments * run update-vendor.sh
What type of PR is this?
/kind cleanup
What this PR does / why we need it:
This is part of a larger change that moves interfaces and type and func defiinitions to the staging repo "k8s.io/kube-scheduler", to allow users for importing scheduler framework interfaces without importing k/k repo.
This PR moves structs ClusterEvent, ActionType, EventResource, ClusterEventWithHint, types QueueingHint and QueueingHintFn from k/k to the staging repo. Functions handling matching events remain in k/k, since they contain logic internal to kube-scheduler and are not required by scheduling framework plugins.
Which issue(s) this PR is related to:
Part of #89930
Special notes for your reviewer:
Moving this in a separate PR, since the PR moving everything is just too big to be reviewed
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?
Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.: