Skip to content
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

VR: fix wrong check when compare two configuration files #9822

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: 4.18
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

weizhouapache
Copy link
Member

Description

in some configuration files, the value can be set in multiple times and order matters.
For example there are two haproxy configurations

listen 10_0_xx_yy-22
	bind 10.0.xx.yy:22
	balance roundrobin

listen 10_0_xx_yy-23
	bind 10.0.xx.yy:23
	balance source
listen 10_0_xx_yy-22
	bind 10.0.xx.yy:22
	balance source

listen 10_0_xx_yy-23
	bind 10.0.xx.yy:23
	balance roundrobin

without this change, they are considered as same configuration, which is obviously wrong.

Types of changes

  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • Enhancement (improves an existing feature and functionality)
  • Cleanup (Code refactoring and cleanup, that may add test cases)
  • build/CI
  • test (unit or integration test code)

Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity

Feature/Enhancement Scale

  • Major
  • Minor

Bug Severity

  • BLOCKER
  • Critical
  • Major
  • Minor
  • Trivial

Screenshots (if appropriate):

How Has This Been Tested?

How did you try to break this feature and the system with this change?

@weizhouapache
Copy link
Member Author

@blueorangutan package

@blueorangutan
Copy link

@weizhouapache a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with KVM, XenServer and VMware SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

@weizhouapache weizhouapache added this to the 4.19.2.0 milestone Oct 17, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 17, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 12.27%. Comparing base (1af4158) to head (cbfa59d).

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##               4.18    #9822     +/-   ##
===========================================
  Coverage     12.27%   12.27%             
- Complexity     9335     9336      +1     
===========================================
  Files          4699     4699             
  Lines        414691   414691             
  Branches      53409    51957   -1452     
===========================================
+ Hits          50891    50896      +5     
+ Misses       357475   357469      -6     
- Partials       6325     6326      +1     
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 12.27% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@blueorangutan
Copy link

Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 11380

@weizhouapache
Copy link
Member Author

@blueorangutan test

@blueorangutan
Copy link

@weizhouapache a [SL] Trillian-Jenkins test job (ol8 mgmt + kvm-ol8) has been kicked to run smoke tests

@blueorangutan
Copy link

[SF] Trillian test result (tid-11683)
Environment: kvm-ol8 (x2), Advanced Networking with Mgmt server ol8
Total time taken: 45826 seconds
Marvin logs: https://github.com/blueorangutan/acs-prs/releases/download/trillian/pr9822-t11683-kvm-ol8.zip
Smoke tests completed. 110 look OK, 1 have errors, 0 did not run
Only failed and skipped tests results shown below:

Test Result Time (s) Test File
ContextSuite context=TestISOUsage>:setup Error 0.00 test_usage.py

@weizhouapache weizhouapache marked this pull request as ready for review October 18, 2024 09:24
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Autoscale Source Based Sticky Session Doesnt Always Work
4 participants