-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 112
fix(node): handle properly volume resize when asking for more than the available space #656
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: develop
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
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.
Thanks! Changes look reasonable to me. Can you please add a CI test for the same if possible?
Does this PR require any upgrade changes?:
Not sure about what this question mean, but I don't think so.
It basically means do we need to handle anything for upgrading from an older version to this.
Anyway the changes don't seem to directly impact upgrades but I will double check the scenarios you have mentioned, on a volume created on a previous version and the the resize being performed after upgrade.
@plaffitt I see you have created a new issue on the same, and your suggestion on adding a check on the ControllerExpand. That sounds fair to me, can you add the same in the PR. I tried the same and you can refer the code from below if it looks good to you. Thanks. https://github.com/openebs/zfs-localpv/compare/add_check_controller?expand=1 cc @tiagolobocastro |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #656 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 95.99% 95.94% -0.06%
===========================================
Files 1 1
Lines 574 690 +116
===========================================
+ Hits 551 662 +111
- Misses 19 23 +4
- Partials 4 5 +1
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
9c4ca15
to
d9788b4
Compare
Signed-off-by: Paul Laffitte <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Paul Laffitte <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Paul Laffitte <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Paul Laffitte <[email protected]>
d9788b4
to
d18b5cd
Compare
Hello, is there anything missing to review/merge this PR? |
Pull Request template
Why is this PR required? What issue does it fix?: closes #649
What this PR does?: It reverts
(ref)quota
to the previous value of(ref)reservation
(the value that we read from zfs before setting those 2 properties together).Does this PR require any upgrade changes?: Not sure about what this question mean, but I don't think so.
If the changes in this PR are manually verified, list down the scenarios covered::
ResourceExhausted
codeAny additional information for your reviewer? :
N/A
Checklist:
<type>(<scope>): <subject>