-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 198
Bump OVN-K #3728
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: devel
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Bump OVN-K #3728
Conversation
|
🤖 Created branch: z_pr3728/aswinsuryan/bump-ovn-ovsdb |
4c43dc4 to
8d4c20a
Compare
3897d80 to
97582c4
Compare
Signed-off-by: Aswin Suryanarayanan <[email protected]>
97582c4 to
228c57c
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.
@aswinsuryan Can you outline/describe the changes associated with the bump in the commit message? Eg why do we no longer call libovsdbops.CreateOrUpdateLogicalRouterPolicyWithPredicate, DeleteLogicalRouterStaticRoutesWithPredicate, etc?
|
|
||
| ops = append(ops, updateOps...) | ||
| } else { | ||
| lrp.UUID = "new_lrp" |
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 needs to be unique (same on L272). Internally OVSDB code uses buildNamedUUID tho we can't access that. We could duplicate the code but not ideal. I don't know how important it is to follow OVSDB rfc 7047 section 5.1. We can also just use NewUUID from k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/util/uuid.
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.
I added commit 980b262 to adjust the relevant unit test so it now fails due to non-unique UUIDs. It didn't fail before due to timing and luck.
| return errors.Wrapf(err, "failed to find ovn cluster router %q", OVNClusterRouter) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if router.UUID == "" { |
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.
Is this just defensive or is it actually possible for this to be empty (and have you observed it)?
| defer c.client.mutex.Unlock() | ||
|
|
||
| uuid := getUUID(m) | ||
| if uuid != "" { |
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.
Perhaps we should fail if empty (ie Expect(uuid).NotTo(BeEmpty()))?
I assume the real implementation also looks up by UUID? Perhaps we should also modify Delete to do so.
Signed-off-by: Tom Pantelis <[email protected]>
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| c.client.models[reflect.TypeOf(m)] = append(c.client.models[reflect.TypeOf(m)], m) |
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.
Since this function is Update I don't think we should add if not present.
Bump OVN-K