-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.7k
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
refactor: OptionsBuilder works on kops.Cluster #16768
refactor: OptionsBuilder works on kops.Cluster #16768
Conversation
b20bcc2
to
ef0a6de
Compare
I think /retest |
ef0a6de
to
e803153
Compare
/test pull-kops-e2e-cni-cilium-eni |
/test pull-kops-e2e-cni-kuberouter |
Previously it worked on ClusterSpec, but that means we can't read the labels or annotations. We want to use those labels/annotations to experiment with new cloud providers (e.g. bare metal) before adding this to the API. Introduce generics so we also get type-safety.
e803153
to
29d6fd8
Compare
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: hakman 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 |
/retest I am confused as to how this could be failing when initializing DNS, but other jobs are not failing.... retesting one more time to validate my assumptions! |
I think the imds error is legitimate and a result of #16647 but I'm not sure why it is happening inconsistently. |
The Kubernetes project has merge-blocking tests that are currently too flaky to consistently pass. This bot retests PRs for certain kubernetes repos according to the following rules:
You can:
/retest |
@justinsb: The following tests failed, say
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-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
Previously it worked on ClusterSpec, but that means we can't read the
labels or annotations. We want to use those labels/annotations to
experiment with new cloud providers (e.g. bare metal) before adding
this to the API.
Introduce generics so we also get type-safety.