-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4k
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 test for recomputing similar nodegroups #7612
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: rrangith 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 |
Hi @rrangith. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a kubernetes member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the 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-sigs/prow repository. |
4896bd8
to
bc8d3af
Compare
bc8d3af
to
137f2b4
Compare
f74f8d5
to
66f7b3e
Compare
66f7b3e
to
9d44562
Compare
What type of PR is this?
/kind cleanup
What this PR does / why we need it:
Related to #6926
It was suggested that first I add a test that will ensure that by default the similar nodegroup recomputation works. And then in my other PR I can add a test to ensure that if the
SkipSimilarNodeGroupRecomputation
field is true, then we will not recompute similar nodegroupsThis adds no new functionality, just a test. It is almost identical to the existing test here. My new test just changes the expander strategy so that it returns a best option with no similar nodegroups. This will test to make sure this line correctly recomputes the similar nodegroups
Special notes for your reviewer:
You can hide whitespace changes to make it easier to review
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?
Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.: