VPA: Add observedGeneration to status and conditions#9524
VPA: Add observedGeneration to status and conditions#9524adrianmoisey wants to merge 3 commits intokubernetes:masterfrom
Conversation
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: adrianmoisey The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
This issue is currently awaiting triage. If SIG Autoscaling contributors determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the The DetailsInstructions 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. |
|
This PR may require API review. If so, when the changes are ready, complete the pre-review checklist and request an API review. Status of requested reviews is tracked in the API Review project. |
|
/label api-review |
06d2eb5 to
e69e6d4
Compare
|
/retest |
| vpa, err := vpaClient.AutoscalingV1().VerticalPodAutoscalers(ns.Name).Get(ctx, vpaCRD.Name, metav1.GetOptions{}) | ||
| if err != nil { | ||
| return false, err | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we want to retry here as well?
What type of PR is this?
/kind cleanup
What this PR does / why we need it:
Doing to VPA what Jordan suggested we do to HPA: kubernetes/kubernetes#138228 (comment)
This also moves us closer to the standardised conditions: https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/tree/master/keps/sig-api-machinery/1623-standardize-conditions
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does a change like this need feature gateing? I assume not since it has a CRD that gets applied to the cluster.
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?
Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.:
/cc liggitt