-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 961
fix zones match #6431
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
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
fix zones match #6431
Conversation
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
/cc @RainbowMango |
Hi @whitewindmills, the UT has failed. |
Signed-off-by: whitewindmills <[email protected]>
thanks, fixed. |
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #6431 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 49.05% 49.05% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 687 687
Lines 56058 56061 +3
==========================================
- Hits 27500 27499 -1
- Misses 26777 26780 +3
- Partials 1781 1782 +1
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
seems to be unrelated test cases. |
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.
/assign
Line 210 in adef1e5
This PR looks good to me. But this comment shows the previous behavior was in line with expectations and was not a bug. Can you remind me why it was designed this way before? |
Maybe I had not considered the actual usage scenario at that time. |
What type of PR is this?
/kind bug
What this PR does / why we need it:

For clusters across multiple AZs, should we relax the restrictions so that as long as there is a matching zone attribute, the cluster can be used as a scheduling candidate cluster? Otherwise, the scheduling results cannot be calculated in many scenarios.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: