-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 378
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
🌱 Set worker count to 10 everywhere #2699
Conversation
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: stevekuznetsov 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 |
New changes are detected. LGTM label has been removed. |
7356e88
to
ffc56b2
Compare
@@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ func TestServerWithClientCAFile(clientCAFile string) []string { | |||
// start a test server with the given token auth file. | |||
func TestServerArgsWithTokenAuthFile(tokenAuthFile string) []string { | |||
return []string{ | |||
"-v=4", |
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.
this is undesired, isn't 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.
It's for debugging the failures
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.
for debugging sure, but to merge? We already went from 2 to 4 sometime ago. Now 5?
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.
Not to merge, no
/hold |
/retest |
1 similar comment
/retest |
ffc56b2
to
3290979
Compare
Signed-off-by: Andy Goldstein <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Andy Goldstein <[email protected]>
3290979
to
ec68ca8
Compare
Signed-off-by: Andy Goldstein <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Andy Goldstein <[email protected]>
Skip deleting bound resources in the logicalcluster deletor as this can race with the apibinding deletion controller. If the apibinding deletion controller deletes an APIBinding and all its instances and then the logicalcluster deletor tries to delete the collection of the same resources (because it saw the resource in discovery), it will get a 404 and go into rate limited backoff, which we don't want. Signed-off-by: Andy Goldstein <[email protected]>
@ncdc: The following tests failed, say
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. 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/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
PR needs rebase. 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/test-infra repository. |
@ncdc I assume we still want this? |
Yes, I think so. I still haven't figured out why this consistently causes content deletion to fail/flake. |
Replaced by #2960 |
@ncdc: Closed this PR. In response to this:
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/test-infra repository. |
No description provided.