fix: cr crd update on concurrency#825
Merged
Merged
Conversation
mblos
requested review from
PhilippMatthes,
SoWieMarkus,
auhlig,
juliusclausnitzer and
umswmayj
as code owners
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThis PR adds input validation and retry logic to the commitment change handler. Requests without an Availability Zone are rejected with HTTP 400 before processing. CommittedResource upsert now uses retry-on-conflict semantics with generation capture for watch polling, removing prior immutability validation on the availability zone field. ChangesCommitment Change Handling
Estimated code review effort🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~20 minutes Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1❌ Failed checks (1 inconclusive)
✅ Passed checks (4 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing Touches📝 Generate docstrings
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
internal/scheduling/reservations/commitments/api/change_commitments.go (1)
265-289: ⚡ Quick winAdd a regression test for the conflict-retry path.
This retry wrapper is the main behavior change in the PR, but the new tests only cover AZ validation. A test client that forces one conflict during the
CommittedResourcewrite would lock in both the retry behavior and the post-retry generation capture.🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@internal/scheduling/reservations/commitments/api/change_commitments.go` around lines 265 - 289, Add a regression test that exercises the RetryOnConflict path by simulating a conflict on the first CommittedResource write and succeeding on retry, verifying that controllerutil.CreateOrUpdate is retried and that crGeneration is captured and appended to toWatch; specifically create a test around the function/path that uses retry.RetryOnConflict and controllerutil.CreateOrUpdate (or the higher-level change_commitments logic) where a fake client returns a Conflict error once for the initial Update, then succeeds, assert that applyCRSpec is applied, the code retries, cr.Generation is read into crGeneration, and a crWatch entry (name + generation) is appended (reference symbols: retry.RetryOnConflict, controllerutil.CreateOrUpdate, crGeneration, toWatch/crWatch, applyCRSpec).
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Nitpick comments:
In `@internal/scheduling/reservations/commitments/api/change_commitments.go`:
- Around line 265-289: Add a regression test that exercises the RetryOnConflict
path by simulating a conflict on the first CommittedResource write and
succeeding on retry, verifying that controllerutil.CreateOrUpdate is retried and
that crGeneration is captured and appended to toWatch; specifically create a
test around the function/path that uses retry.RetryOnConflict and
controllerutil.CreateOrUpdate (or the higher-level change_commitments logic)
where a fake client returns a Conflict error once for the initial Update, then
succeeds, assert that applyCRSpec is applied, the code retries, cr.Generation is
read into crGeneration, and a crWatch entry (name + generation) is appended
(reference symbols: retry.RetryOnConflict, controllerutil.CreateOrUpdate,
crGeneration, toWatch/crWatch, applyCRSpec).
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: bb2f3309-4e77-414f-b800-1692ca9b4d1b
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
internal/scheduling/reservations/commitments/api/change_commitments.gointernal/scheduling/reservations/commitments/api/change_commitments_test.go
Contributor
Test Coverage ReportTest Coverage 📊: 69.0% |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.