Skip to content
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

[3.5] backport #17176 fix learner metric incorrect issue #17266

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: release-3.5
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

YaoC
Copy link
Contributor

@YaoC YaoC commented Jan 17, 2024

Signed-off-by: YaoC <chengyao09@hotmail.com>
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link

Hi @YaoC. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a etcd-io member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

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/test-infra repository.

@YaoC
Copy link
Contributor Author

YaoC commented Jan 17, 2024

I'm trying to backport #17176 but I found that the e2e test code for release-3.5 and release-3.4 is quite different from the one in the main branch. Should I first backport the corresponding e2e framework or rewrite a new e2e case? Any suggestions? @ahrtr @serathius

@YaoC YaoC changed the title server: fix learner metric incorrect issue [3.5] backport #17176 fix learner metric incorrect issue Jan 17, 2024
@ahrtr
Copy link
Member

ahrtr commented Jan 19, 2024

In general, we need to evaluate it case by case. My thought on this are:

  • We can try to backport the test framework and common utilities. But if it (backporting) needs huge effort, It's also accepted to directly implement some utilities (e.g. WaitLeader) in 3.5 and 3.4 if it just needs minor effort
  • It's open to discussion. cc @jmhbnz @serathius @fuweid @amit-rastogi

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants