Minikube cluster detection followup #4742
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #4742 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 73.42% 73.44% +0.01%
==========================================
Files 345 345
Lines 13755 13739 -16
==========================================
- Hits 10100 10090 -10
+ Misses 3022 3020 -2
+ Partials 633 629 -4
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
| for _, n := range v.Config.Nodes { | ||
| if serverURL.Host == fmt.Sprintf("%s:%d", n.IP, n.Port) { | ||
| if err == nil && serverURL.Host == fmt.Sprintf("%s:%d", n.IP, n.Port) { | ||
| // TODO: Revisit once https://github.com/kubernetes/minikube/issues/6642 is fixed | ||
| return true, nil | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we still want the profileId == kubeContext heuristic:
if v.Config.Name != kubeContext {
logrus.Infof("Found minikube profile with same name as %q", kubeContext)
return true, nil
}There was a problem hiding this comment.
but by your own example: having GKE, kind and minikube clusters all called test, this heuristic would fail. Even though there's a workaround for that, it could break folks on release and as such doesn't seem that backwards compatible. Maybe it'd be better if minikube fixed kubernetes/minikube#6642 so we wouldn't have to go around guessing.
Fixes for comments on #4701 after it got merged