feat: check CoreDNS #84
Conversation
WalkthroughA new function Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Warning Rate limit exceeded@c3y1huang has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 15 minutes and 43 seconds before requesting another review. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
Documentation and Community
|
c3y1huang
force-pushed
the
9752-dr-volume-faulted-after-node-reboot
branch
from
0b95493
to
adeb3e9
Compare
longhorn/longhorn-9752 Signed-off-by: Chin-Ya Huang <chin-ya.huang@suse.com>
c3y1huang
force-pushed
the
9752-dr-volume-faulted-after-node-reboot
branch
2 times, most recently
from
6000072
to
baee524
Compare
|
@coderabbitai review |
✅ Actions performedReview triggered.
|
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #84 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 77.58% 77.69% +0.10%
==========================================
Files 35 36 +1
Lines 1932 1941 +9
==========================================
+ Hits 1499 1508 +9
Misses 317 317
Partials 116 116
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
kubernetes/deployment.go (1)
20-20: Consider using Info level for resource operations.Since this function is crucial for DR operations, consider using
log.Infoinstead oflog.Trace. This will provide better visibility into resource operations during critical scenarios.- log.Trace("Getting resource") + log.Info("Getting resource")kubernetes/deployment_test.go (2)
24-42: Fix inconsistent test case naming.The test case key "GetDeployment(...):" has a trailing colon which is inconsistent with typical test case naming conventions.
Consider this improvement:
testCases := map[string]testCase{ - "GetDeployment(...):": { + "should get existing deployment": { // ... }, - "GetDeployment(...): not found": { + "should handle non-existent deployment": { // ... }, }
16-42: Consider adding more test cases for better coverage.The current test cases only cover basic success and not-found scenarios. Consider adding test cases for:
- Different namespaces
- Invalid namespace names
- Invalid deployment names
- Context cancellation scenarios
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
kubernetes/deployment.go(1 hunks)kubernetes/deployment_test.go(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (4)
kubernetes/deployment.go (2)
1-11: LGTM! Well-organized imports and package declaration.
The imports are properly organized and include all necessary dependencies for Kubernetes client operations and logging.
13-23: Verify CoreDNS-specific usage of this function.
Since this PR is titled "feat: check CoreDNS", let's verify how this function is used in relation to CoreDNS operations.
kubernetes/deployment_test.go (2)
1-14: LGTM! Imports are well-organized and necessary.
The package name and imports are appropriate for a Kubernetes deployment test file.
53-53: Verify the GetDeployment function implementation.
The test assumes the existence of a GetDeployment function. Let's verify its implementation.
✅ Verification successful
GetDeployment function is properly implemented
The function is correctly implemented in kubernetes/deployment.go:
- Takes the required parameters: kubeClient, namespace, and name
- Uses the Kubernetes client's AppsV1 API to get the deployment
- Returns the deployment object and error as expected
- Includes appropriate logging
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for the GetDeployment function implementation
ast-grep --pattern 'func GetDeployment($_, $_, $_) {
$$$
}'
Length of output: 63
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a broader search for GetDeployment using ripgrep
rg "GetDeployment" -A 5
Length of output: 2042
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's see the full implementation of GetDeployment function
cat kubernetes/deployment.go
Length of output: 672
longhorn/longhorn-9752 Signed-off-by: Chin-Ya Huang <chin-ya.huang@suse.com>
c3y1huang
force-pushed
the
9752-dr-volume-faulted-after-node-reboot
branch
from
baee524
to
e111713
Compare
|
@coderabbitai review |
✅ Actions performedReview triggered.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
kubernetes/deployment_test.go (2)
16-23: Consider enhancing test coverage with additional test case fields.The test structure is good, but consider adding fields to test more scenarios:
- Different deployment specifications (replicas, labels, etc.)
- Various metadata annotations
- Update scenarios
Example enhancement:
type testCase struct { deployment *appsv1.Deployment expectNotFound bool + // Additional fields for better coverage + expectedReplicas *int32 + withLabels map[string]string + withAnnotations map[string]string }
43-61: Consider adding cleanup between test cases.The test execution is well-structured, but consider adding cleanup between test cases to ensure complete isolation.
for testName, testCase := range testCases { c.Logf("testing kubernetes.%v", testName) + // Clean up any existing resources + if err := kubeClient.AppsV1().Deployments(testCase.deployment.Namespace).Delete( + ctx, testCase.deployment.Name, metav1.DeleteOptions{}); err != nil { + if !apierrors.IsNotFound(err) { + c.Assert(err, IsNil, Commentf(test.ErrErrorFmt, testName)) + } + } // ... rest of the test case ... }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
kubernetes/deployment_test.go(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
kubernetes/deployment_test.go (2)
1-14: LGTM! Imports are well-organized and appropriate.
All necessary dependencies are properly imported for testing Kubernetes deployments.
16-61: Verify test coverage for DR volume scenario.
While the test coverage for the GetDeployment function is good, please ensure that this change adequately tests the DR volume reattachment scenario mentioned in issue longhorn/longhorn#9752.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Issue longhorn/longhorn#9752
What this PR does / why we need it:
Add
GetDeployment.Special notes for your reviewer:
NoneAdditional documentation or context
None