-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 601
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
Broker class based defaults #7631
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Leo Li <[email protected]>
Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request. |
c4a2ff3
to
662c214
Compare
Signed-off-by: Leo Li <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Leo Li <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Leo Li <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Leo Li <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Leo Li <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Leo Li <[email protected]>
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #7631 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 67.92% 67.88% -0.04%
==========================================
Files 367 368 +1
Lines 17323 17586 +263
==========================================
+ Hits 11767 11939 +172
- Misses 4823 4897 +74
- Partials 733 750 +17 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Signed-off-by: Leo Li <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Leo Li <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Leo Li <[email protected]>
Steps to test
|
Signed-off-by: Leo Li <[email protected]>
/unhold |
@Leo6Leo is there a plan to add a rekt test for this feature? Maybe in another PR? |
return config, nil | ||
} | ||
|
||
return d.ClusterDefaultConfig.BrokerConfig, nil |
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.
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.
Ping @Leo6Leo - wdyt here? From the previous comment, my intuition is that this should return an error, but I'm not sure
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.
If the requested brokerClass
lacks a specific configuration, the system should fallback to using the default brokerClass and its configuration, rather than throwing an error. This behavior aligns with the purpose of having a default configuration in place in my opinion. But returning the error also makes sense to me.
Signed-off-by: Leo Li <[email protected]>
return config, nil | ||
} | ||
|
||
return d.ClusterDefaultConfig.BrokerConfig, nil |
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.
Ping @Leo6Leo - wdyt here? From the previous comment, my intuition is that this should return an error, but I'm not sure
Note: Thanks to @Cali0707 's suggestion , now trying to gradually deprecate the deafult broker class and config here. Current behavior:
Future plan:
Rationale:
This change simplifies the configuration model and reduces potential confusion or conflicts between the two ways of specifying default broker configurations. |
@Leo6Leo I think it's worth still having a "default" class available, just maybe not also a config. Then the default class is just referring to the one of the classes in the |
Signed-off-by: Leo Li <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Leo Li <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Leo Li <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Leo Li <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Leo Li <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Leo Li <[email protected]>
The documentation is written here in this PR knative/docs#6069 |
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.
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
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: Leo6Leo, pierDipi 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 |
Fixes #5992
Proposed Changes
Corner cases - what will happen if the user do these:
Pre-review Checklist
Release Note
Docs
knative/docs#6069