-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 49
NETOBSERV-2364: Typo in packet record map name used with bpfman #811
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.
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
@luisjira: This pull request references NETOBSERV-2364 which is a valid jira issue. Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the bug to target the "4.21.0" version, but no target version was set. In response to this:
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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
@luisjira: The following test failed, say
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. 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-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
you should rune make fmt
to format all the files 😉
- name: Verify map names consistency | ||
run: make verify-maps |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Isn't it already covered by test
target since it's under pkg/maps
?
We should either remove that or change the paths to exclude maps checks from tests 🤔
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #811 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 29.74% 29.67% -0.08%
==========================================
Files 49 49
Lines 5355 5355
==========================================
- Hits 1593 1589 -4
- Misses 3645 3648 +3
- Partials 117 118 +1
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
Description
Creates a new package "maps" and verifies that the map names defined in eBPF and in
.mk/bc.mk
match the names in the package.The package can be imported in the operator to prevent any map name mismatches.
Dependencies
n/a
Checklist
If you are not familiar with our processes or don't know what to answer in the list below, let us know in a comment: the maintainers will take care of that.
To run a perfscale test, comment with:
/test ebpf-node-density-heavy-25nodes