fix: honor requested num in IdentifyScaleInNodes#1282
Open
ritesh-harihar wants to merge 4 commits intomainfrom
Open
fix: honor requested num in IdentifyScaleInNodes#1282ritesh-harihar wants to merge 4 commits intomainfrom
ritesh-harihar wants to merge 4 commits intomainfrom
Conversation
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Description
scale-in identification could return more nodes than requested, causing plugins to potentially drain/destroy too many nodes.
Problem
IdentifyScaleInNodes(cfg, num) was not enforcing the requested num consistently, which broke expected compatibility behavior for external plugins relying on this API.
Changes
- honoring requested num
- remote-check behavior
- rejecting non-positive num inputs
JIRA ISSUE
Testing:
validated via live Nomad test-setup flow + focused test suite.
Previous flow:
Changes to Security Controls
Are there any changes to security controls (access controls, encryption, logging) in this pull request? If so, explain.