🌱 exponential retry on name resolution to registries #1576
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Jordan Keister <[email protected]>
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
approved
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1576 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 46.76% 46.77% +0.01%
==========================================
Files 135 135
Lines 15776 15883 +107
==========================================
+ Hits 7377 7429 +52
- Misses 7358 7412 +54
- Partials 1041 1042 +1 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
| name, root, err := resolver.Resolve(ctx, ref.String()) | ||
| if err != nil { | ||
| return fmt.Errorf("error resolving name for image ref %s: %v", ref.String(), err) | ||
| retryBackoff := wait.Backoff{ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
do we care about unit testing the retry? might require some refactoring to pass in a mock Resolve though, eh? =S
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'll leave it as a nit - otherwise lgtm =D
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I was taken aback, honestly, at the lack of utest in the area. My practical test? Download 32 catalog combinations multiple times.
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: grokspawn, perdasilva 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 |
19a457e
Resolves #1513
extends the existing exponential fallback strategy to include initial name resolution to the registry.
Description of the change:
Motivation for the change:
Reviewer Checklist
/docs