@kubernetes/sig-storage-pr-reviews
—
You are receiving this because you are on a team that was mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.![]()
@juanvallejo commented on this pull request.
In pkg/printers/internalversion/describe.go:
> events, _ := d.Core().Events(namespace).Search(legacyscheme.Scheme, pvc)
- return describePersistentVolumeClaim(pvc, events)
+ return describePersistentVolumeClaim(pvc, events, mountPods)
+}
+
+func getMountPods(c coreclient.PodInterface, pvcName string) ([]api.Pod, error) {
+ nsPods, err := c.List(metav1.ListOptions{})
Maybe we should set a limit as part of ListOptions in order to chunk potentially large responses? Don't feel strongly on this though cc @soltysh
@clandry94 commented on this pull request.
In pkg/printers/internalversion/describe.go:
> events, _ := d.Core().Events(namespace).Search(legacyscheme.Scheme, pvc)
- return describePersistentVolumeClaim(pvc, events)
+ return describePersistentVolumeClaim(pvc, events, mountPods)
+}
+
+func getMountPods(c coreclient.PodInterface, pvcName string) ([]api.Pod, error) {
+ nsPods, err := c.List(metav1.ListOptions{})
I don't see any other usages of limiting ListOptions for other describe operations, so I figure that it hasn't been an issue yet. I have no opinion on the matter though, if you think we should set a limit, I will.
@soltysh commented on this pull request.
In pkg/printers/internalversion/describe.go:
> events, _ := d.Core().Events(namespace).Search(legacyscheme.Scheme, pvc)
- return describePersistentVolumeClaim(pvc, events)
+ return describePersistentVolumeClaim(pvc, events, mountPods)
+}
+
+func getMountPods(c coreclient.PodInterface, pvcName string) ([]api.Pod, error) {
+ nsPods, err := c.List(metav1.ListOptions{})
I don't expect that list to be that long, besides kubectl describe can and should be verbose. It's in the kubectl get where we try to save space with more... and similar.
@soltysh approved this pull request.
/approve
Please squash your changes and we'll push it forward.
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED
This pull-request has been approved by: clandry94, soltysh
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 /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment
squashed 👍
/lgtm
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED
This pull-request has been approved by: clandry94, juanvallejo, soltysh
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 /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment
—
/test all [submit-queue is verifying that this PR is safe to merge]
@clandry94: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun them all:
| Test name | Commit | Details | Rerun command |
|---|---|---|---|
| pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce | d956994 | link | /test pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce |
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR.
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. I understand the commands that are listed here.
/test pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 65838, 65837). If you want to cherry-pick this change to another branch, please follow the instructions here.
Merged #65837.
Amazing! thanks @clandry94 for making this happen!