Skip to content

fix: Add default retry configuration for operations triggered via progressive sync strategy #20429

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

fix: Add default retry configuration for operations triggered via progressive sync strategy #20429

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

StupidScience
Copy link

Checklist:

  • Either (a) I've created an enhancement proposal and discussed it with the community, (b) this is a bug fix, or (c) this does not need to be in the release notes.
  • The title of the PR states what changed and the related issues number (used for the release note).
  • The title of the PR conforms to the Toolchain Guide
  • I've included "Closes [ISSUE #]" or "Fixes [ISSUE #]" in the description to automatically close the associated issue.
  • I've updated both the CLI and UI to expose my feature, or I plan to submit a second PR with them.
  • Does this PR require documentation updates?
  • I've updated documentation as required by this PR.
  • I have signed off all my commits as required by DCO
  • I have written unit and/or e2e tests for my change. PRs without these are unlikely to be merged.
  • My build is green (troubleshooting builds).
  • My new feature complies with the feature status guidelines.
  • I have added a brief description of why this PR is necessary and/or what this PR solves.
  • Optional. My organization is added to USERS.md.
  • Optional. For bug fixes, I've indicated what older releases this fix should be cherry-picked into (this may or may not happen depending on risk/complexity).

Fixes #20428

@StupidScience
Add default retry configuration for operations triggered via progress…
f2de43d 
…ive sync strategy

Signed-off-by: Anton Kaymakchi <tonysignal@gmail.com>
@StupidScience StupidScience requested a review from a team as a code owner October 17, 2024 16:01
@bunnyshell Bunnyshell
Copy link

bunnyshell bot commented Oct 17, 2024 •
edited
Loading

❗ Preview Environment undeploy from Bunnyshell failed

See: Environment Details | Pipeline Logs

Available commands (reply to this comment):

  • 🚀 /bns:deploy to redeploy the environment
  • ❌ /bns:delete to try again to remove the environment

@codecov Codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 17, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 55.06%. Comparing base (4faf8dd) to head (f2de43d).
Report is 1074 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
...cationset/controllers/applicationset_controller.go 0.00% 2 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files 
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #20429      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   56.05%   55.06%   -1.00%     
==========================================
  Files         322      322              
  Lines       44802    54916   +10114     
==========================================
+ Hits        25115    30240    +5125     
- Misses      17084    22078    +4994     
+ Partials     2603     2598       -5

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

andrii-korotkov-verkada
andrii-korotkov-verkada reviewed Nov 10, 2024
View reviewed changes
applicationset/controllers/applicationset_controller.go
@@ -1430,7 +1430,8 @@ func syncApplication(application argov1alpha1.Application, prune bool) argov1alp
Value: "ApplicationSet RollingSync triggered a sync of this Application resource.",
},
},
Sync: &argov1alpha1.SyncOperation{},
Sync: &argov1alpha1.SyncOperation{},
Retry: argov1alpha1.RetryStrategy{Limit: 5},
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hardcoding this doesn't seem right. I believe the retry policy for apps should be derived from the app configuration, but correct me if I'm wrong.

mikeshng
mikeshng reviewed Jun 9, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@mikeshng mikeshng left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree with @andrii-korotkov-verkada

We should avoid hardcoding default values, especially when they are not configurable.

@crenshaw-dev
Copy link
Member

Agree in general, but a reasonable default seems okay. We could add fields to the appset spec to make it configurable, but I don't think that should be a prereq to enabling retries by default.

@mikeshng mikeshng mentioned this pull request Jun 9, 2025
Merged
14 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
2 more reviewers

@mikeshng mikeshng mikeshng left review comments

@andrii-korotkov-verkada andrii-korotkov-verkada andrii-korotkov-verkada left review comments

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Application operation from progressive sync do not have retries by default
5 participants
@StupidScience @crenshaw-dev @mikeshng @andrii-korotkov-verkada @agaudreault