Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
recommendation post processor for integer CPU #5313
recommendation post processor for integer CPU #5313
Changes from 1 commit
87c4bba
9653f6e
8f3412d
13f8eee
17ef628
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What's the contract about
UncappedTarget
? Probably post-processors should leave it as-is, like limit capping does?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
it make sense that the
UncappedTarget
is not touched by the capping post-processor, but I would say that the same does not apply to other post-processors than capping.I don't think we need to keep a
UnXYZTarget
for each XYZ post-processorThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The annotation can also be turned off by setting it to
false
, so can you please also add some tests for the case wherevpaPostProcessorPrefix + "container1" + vpaPostProcessorIntegerCPUSuffix: "false"
While writing this, I'm not sure if we need this additional case? How is this different from the annotation not being present for a container? As an alternative, the annotation could list the containers for which this post-processor is turned on?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
"false" and annotation not being present are equivalent indeed.
We already have the support for multiple container with the current code (list of annotation, one per container), adding another way of expressing the same thing may introduce confusion and complexity.