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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Fix cpb traverses unneeded paths #2239

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 14, 2022
Merged

Fix cpb traverses unneeded paths #2239

merged 1 commit into from
Feb 14, 2022

Conversation

eramoto
Copy link
Contributor

@eramoto eramoto commented Jul 7, 2021

Description of the change:

  • Excludes device filesystems (/dev) and pseudo filesystems (/proc and /sys) from filesystems looking for metadata.
  • Outputs absolute path of skipped file of directory.

Motivation for the change:
cpb, it is run on / of several images, outputs many unuseful messages and spoils log aggregation systems (elasticsearch, loki etc.).

Reviewer Checklist

  • Implementation matches the proposed design, or proposal is updated to match implementation
  • Sufficient unit test coverage
  • Sufficient end-to-end test coverage
  • Docs updated or added to /doc
  • Commit messages sensible and descriptive

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot requested review from awgreene and kevinrizza July 7, 2021 11:10
@openshift-ci
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Jul 7, 2021

Hi @eramoto. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a operator-framework member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

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/test-infra repository.

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. label Jul 7, 2021
@dinhxuanvu
Copy link
Member

/ok-to-test

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. and removed needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Jul 7, 2021
@eramoto eramoto force-pushed the suppress-cpb-messages branch from 83a670c to ec260a5 Compare July 8, 2021 00:09
@eramoto
Copy link
Contributor Author

eramoto commented Jul 8, 2021

Added my sign-off to this commit

@eramoto @njhale
Fix cpb traverses unneeded paths
1f10c5d 
cpb, it is run on '/' of several images, outputs many unuseful messages
and spoils log aggregation systems.  So cpb excludes device filesystems
and pseudo filesystems from filesystems looking for metadata.

Signed-off-by: ERAMOTO Masaya <[email protected]>
@njhale njhale force-pushed the suppress-cpb-messages branch from ec260a5 to 1f10c5d Compare February 14, 2022 20:48
@njhale
Copy link
Member

njhale commented Feb 14, 2022

/approve

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Feb 14, 2022
njhale
njhale approved these changes Feb 14, 2022
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@njhale njhale left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

/lgtm

util/cpb/main.go
fmt.Printf("couldn't get the absolute path %q: %v\n", path, err)
return nil
}
for _, v := range excludeDir {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: We could use a hash set for an O(1) lookup here, but since we have a relatively small and constant number of exclusions, I'm not too worried about being ultra efficient here.

@openshift-ci
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Feb 14, 2022

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: eramoto, njhale

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

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Feb 14, 2022
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit 6f59a3b into operator-framework:master Feb 14, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@njhale njhale njhale approved these changes

@awgreene awgreene Awaiting requested review from awgreene

@kevinrizza kevinrizza Awaiting requested review from kevinrizza

Assignees

@njhale njhale

Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@eramoto @dinhxuanvu @njhale @openshift-merge-robot