Skip to content
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

🌱 Syncer: Complete the move to structural logging #2134

Conversation

davidfestal
Copy link
Member

@davidfestal davidfestal commented Oct 5, 2022

Summary

Complete the move to structural logging in the Syncer.
This has been started in a previous PR, but many places were not finished.

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot requested review from jmprusi and ncdc October 5, 2022 16:45
@davidfestal davidfestal requested a review from sttts October 5, 2022 16:46
@davidfestal davidfestal force-pushed the complete-structural-logging-in-syncer branch 2 times, most recently from 9a3c9cb to 25fd06e Compare October 5, 2022 17:14
@davidfestal davidfestal force-pushed the complete-structural-logging-in-syncer branch 5 times, most recently from f0f19d8 to ef0a039 Compare October 6, 2022 15:58
Copy link
Contributor

@stevekuznetsov stevekuznetsov left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

One question, otherwise looks good!

@@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ func wildcardIdentitiesResolver(ids *identities,
logger := logging.WithObject(logger, &apisv1alpha1.APIExport{
ObjectMeta: metav1.ObjectMeta{
Name: name,
Annotations: map[string]string{logging.APIVersionKey: tenancyv1alpha1.RootCluster.String()},
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Shouldn't this be the logicalcluster key...?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Oh, I don't know. I just added the string() around it when the key was of Key type. But now it should be removed.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I removed my change in fact. And let the previous code.

Signed-off-by: David Festal <dfestal@redhat.com>
@davidfestal davidfestal force-pushed the complete-structural-logging-in-syncer branch from ef0a039 to f5a50e8 Compare October 6, 2022 17:10
@stevekuznetsov
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm
/approve

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 6, 2022
@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Oct 6, 2022

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: stevekuznetsov

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

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Oct 6, 2022
@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Oct 6, 2022

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: stevekuznetsov

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

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants