update wrong memory format in the flinkdeployment-cr.yaml

[XiShanYongYe-Chang]

What type of PR is this?

/kind cleanup

What this PR does / why we need it:

The flinkdeployment-cr.yaml use 100m (milli-bytes) of memory. As noted, memory should be specified in realistic units like Mi (e.g., 100Mi / 100M) rather than milli-bytes (m), which represent fractional bytes and are not meaningful for memory in Kubernetes.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

NONE

[karmada-bot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign xishanyongye-chang for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• test/OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request addresses an inconsistency in memory resource definitions within the project's E2E test manifests and corresponding test assertions. By standardizing memory units to 'Mi', the changes ensure that resource requests are correctly interpreted by the Kubernetes scheduler and match the expected behavior in the test suite.

Highlights

• Memory Unit Correction: Updated memory resource specifications from 'm' (milli) to 'Mi' (mebibytes) to align with standard Kubernetes resource quantity formats.
• Test Suite Alignment: Updated end-to-end test expectations in 'federatedresourcequota_test.go' and 'schedule_multi_template_test.go' to reflect the corrected memory units.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize the Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counterproductive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for GitHub and other Google products, sign up here.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request corrects the memory resource units in several E2E test files and manifests, changing '100m' and '200m' to '100Mi' and '200Mi' to correctly represent mebibytes instead of millicores for memory. There are no review comments, and I have no feedback to provide.

[codecov-commenter]

⚠️ Please install the to ensure uploads and comments are reliably processed by Codecov.

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 42.15%. Comparing base (80ff6e5) to head (5ab6b57).
❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #7585      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   42.16%   42.15%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         879      879              
  Lines       54731    54731              
==========================================
- Hits        23076    23074       -2     
- Misses      29911    29913       +2     
  Partials     1744     1744              

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	42.15% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[zhzhuang-zju]

How about:

Suggested change

	gomega.Expect(actualCPU.Cmp(resource.MustParse(expectedCPU))).Should(gomega.Equal(0),
	gomega.Expect(actualCPU.Equal(resource.MustParse(expectedCPU))).Should(gomega.BeTure,

[XiShanYongYe-Chang]

The Cmp method and the Equal method both perform semantic comparisons (ignoring differences in internal formats), with the distinction lying in their return values. At the underlying level, both methods first convert the two Quantities into a unified numerical form before performing the comparison. Therefore, both approaches are correct in their implementation and have no fundamental difference.

[zhzhuang-zju]

Yes, you're totally right. The Equal function is just a wrapper around q.Cmp(v) == 0, so both are fine with me. My only concern is that using Equal seems more common and easier to understand. This is just my suggestion, so feel free to take it or leave it.

[XiShanYongYe-Chang]

/hold