-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 883
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
add a feature-gate for Lazy Reconcile feature #4564
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 |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #4564 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 51.82% 51.90% +0.07%
==========================================
Files 244 246 +2
Lines 24234 24328 +94
==========================================
+ Hits 12560 12627 +67
- Misses 10993 11015 +22
- Partials 681 686 +5
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Hi~ Do this pr need to add a release note? |
Signed-off-by: chaosi-zju <chaosi@zju.edu.cn>
@@ -54,6 +58,7 @@ var ( | |||
CustomizedClusterResourceModeling: {Default: true, PreRelease: featuregate.Beta}, | |||
PolicyPreemption: {Default: false, PreRelease: featuregate.Alpha}, | |||
MultiClusterService: {Default: false, PreRelease: featuregate.Alpha}, | |||
PolicyLazyReconcile: {Default: false, PreRelease: featuregate.Alpha}, |
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.
Why is there only one global switch? Will you also introduce related fields in PP next?
What I mean is, can the system have both an immediately effective PP and a Lazy Reconcile
PP at the same time?
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.
Because if there's only one of two options, then assuming all future defaults are Lazy Reconcile
, most users would refuse to upgrade due to their lack of experience with Lazy Reconcile
.
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.
+1
lazy
should not be the default behavior.
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.
Lazy is not the default behavior as PolicyLazyReconcile{Default: false}
What chaunceyjiang mean is that it is better to add a filed to Policy to control the the effect strategy.
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.
What I mean is: It would be best if these two behaviors could coexist in the karmada.
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 still have one question I don't fully understand, which is: if a resource has not changed but the PP has changed, then this resource will continue to use the old PP. If a rescheduling happens at this time, should the scheduler use the old PP or the new PP? If it uses the new PP, then that behavior would be somewhat inconsistent with our expected behavior.
Our expectation is that the new PP would only be applied if the resource itself has changed.
/close this feature-gate is depracated, replaced by Policy field, refer to #4577. |
@chaosi-zju: 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. |
What type of PR is this?
/kind feature
What this PR does / why we need it:
Small-step commit related code implementation for Policy Lazy Reconcile feature.
This PR only handle: add a feature-gate for Lazy Reconcile feature
More info refer to #4563
add a feature-gate for Lazy Reconcile feature
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes part of #4563
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: