Skip to content

Conversation

ozevren
Copy link
Contributor

@ozevren ozevren commented Mar 8, 2018

Comparing the interfaces are problematic, as it causes panics when the underlying type is a struct{} (and has non-comparable members). instead of &struct{}.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 8, 2018

Codecov Report

Merging #4069 into master will increase coverage by 1%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master   #4069    +/-   ##
=======================================
+ Coverage      75%     75%    +1%     
=======================================
  Files         305     305            
  Lines       28014   27746   -268     
=======================================
- Hits        20786   20619   -167     
+ Misses       5874    5785    -89     
+ Partials     1354    1342    -12
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
mixer/pkg/runtime2/testing/data/data.go 0% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
mixer/pkg/runtime2/routing/builder.go 100% <100%> (ø) ⬆️
security/pkg/pki/util/generate_cert.go 61% <0%> (-22%) ⬇️
pilot/pkg/config/memory/monitor.go 82% <0%> (-9%) ⬇️
pilot/pkg/config/monitor/monitor.go 69% <0%> (-5%) ⬇️
mixer/adapter/redisquota/redisquota.go 86% <0%> (-3%) ⬇️
mixer/adapter/servicecontrol/utils.go 86% <0%> (-3%) ⬇️
mixer/adapter/stdio/stdio.go 100% <0%> (ø) ⬆️
pilot/pkg/proxy/net.go 0% <0%> (ø) ⬆️
pilot/pkg/model/controller.go 100% <0%> (ø) ⬆️
... and 11 more

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update bf132d2...11a473a. Read the comment docs.

…oute build.

+ Comparing the interfaces are problematic, as it causes panics when
the underlying type is a struct{}, instead of &struct{}. Most adapters
are pointers, so this doesn't seem to come up under normal conditions, it
came up only during end-to-end testing.
Copy link
Contributor

@douglas-reid douglas-reid left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm

@istio-merge-robot
Copy link

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: douglas-reid

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

Needs approval from an approver in each of these OWNERS Files:

You can indicate your approval by writing /approve in a comment
You can cancel your approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@istio-merge-robot
Copy link

/test all [submit-queue is verifying that this PR is safe to merge]

@istio-merge-robot
Copy link

Automatic merge from submit-queue.

@istio-merge-robot istio-merge-robot merged commit c18f9a3 into istio:master Mar 8, 2018
@istio-testing
Copy link
Collaborator

@ozevren: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun them all:

Test name Commit Details Rerun command
prow/e2e-simpleTests.sh 11a473a link /test e2e-simple
prow/e2e-bookInfoTests.sh 11a473a link /test e2e-bookInfo
prow/istio-pilot-e2e.sh 11a473a link /test istio-pilot-e2e

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants