operating
operating copied to clipboard
Refactor active deadline seconds
1. Does this PR affect any open issues?(Y/N) and add issue references (e.g. "fix #123", "re #123".):
- [x] N
- [ ] Y
2. What is the scope of this PR (e.g. component or file name):
3. Provide a description of the PR(e.g. more details, effects, motivations or doc link):
- [ ] Affects user behaviors
- [ ] Contains syntax changes
- [ ] Contains variable changes
- [ ] Contains experimental features
- [ ] Performance regression: Consumes more CPU
- [ ] Performance regression: Consumes more Memory
- [ ] Other
4. Are there any breaking changes?(Y/N) and describe the breaking changes(e.g. more details, motivations or doc link):
- [ ] N
- [ ] Y
5. Are there test cases for these changes?(Y/N) select and add more details, references or doc links:
- [ ] Unit test
- [ ] Integration test
- [ ] Benchmark (add benchmark stats below)
- [ ] Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
- [ ] Other
6. Release note
Please refer to Release Notes Language Style Guide to write a quality release note.
None
Codecov Report
Attention: Patch coverage is 94.23077% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
Project coverage is 66.42%. Comparing base (
4fa8b0e) to head (33acb9e). Report is 3 commits behind head on main.
| Files with missing lines | Patch % | Lines |
|---|---|---|
| ...ontrollers/operationjob/operationjob_controller.go | 86.95% | 2 Missing and 1 partial :warning: |
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #284 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 65.99% 66.42% +0.42%
==========================================
Files 78 78
Lines 5647 5665 +18
==========================================
+ Hits 3727 3763 +36
+ Misses 1559 1546 -13
+ Partials 361 356 -5
| Flag | Coverage Δ | |
|---|---|---|
| unittests | 66.42% <94.23%> (+0.42%) |
:arrow_up: |
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
refactor activeDeadlineSeconds from job-level to target-level configuration
the TTL seconds is still job-level configuration