-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
add base name in node label #28
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
Conversation
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@lvjing2 has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 20 minutes and 53 seconds before requesting another review. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. ⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces minor modifications across several files in the project. The changes include adding a Changes
Possibly related PRs
Poem
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #28 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 78.47% 78.47%
=======================================
Files 13 13
Lines 1937 1937
=======================================
Hits 1520 1520
Misses 349 349
Partials 68 68 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
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.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
common/model/model.go (1)
19-19: LGTM! Consider minor comment style adjustmentThe addition of the Name field is well-structured and properly documented. For complete consistency with other fields in the struct, consider removing the period at the end of the comment.
- Name string `json:"name"` // Name of the base. + Name string `json:"name"` // Name of the base
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
go.sumis excluded by!**/*.sum
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
cmd/module-controller/main.go(1 hunks)common/model/model.go(1 hunks)common/utils/utils.go(1 hunks)go.mod(1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (2)
- go.mod
- cmd/module-controller/main.go
🔇 Additional comments (1)
common/utils/utils.go (1)
85-85: LGTM! Verify NodeInfo usage
The addition of BaseName field and its mapping from BaseMetadata.Name is correct and consistent.
Let's verify how NodeInfo is used to ensure this change doesn't affect existing functionality:
✅ Verification successful
BaseName field addition is safe and properly integrated
The verification shows that:
BaseNameis only used in theConvertBaseStatusToNodeInfofunction for struct initializationNodeInfois used in both HTTP and MQTT tunnel modules, but they only pass through the data without accessing theBaseNamefield- The conversion functions are properly tested in
utils_test.go - No other direct access to
BaseNameexists in the codebase
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for NodeInfo struct usage to verify impact
rg -A 3 "NodeInfo.*{|NodeMetadata.*{"
# Search for specific BaseName field access
rg "\.BaseName\b"
Length of output: 180
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for NodeInfo struct usage with proper regex escaping
rg -A 3 "(NodeInfo|NodeMetadata)\s*\{"
# Search for BaseName field access with proper regex
rg "BaseName"
# Search for NodeInfo type references
rg "NodeInfo"
Length of output: 3428
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Namefield to the metadata structure for enhanced identification.BaseNamefield in the node information.Chores
virtual-kubeletdependency for potential improvements.