-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 720
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
tools/simulator: support deleting a specified store #8246
Conversation
[REVIEW NOTIFICATION] This pull request has been approved by:
To complete the pull request process, please ask the reviewers in the list to review by filling The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. Reviewer can indicate their review by submitting an approval review. |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #8246 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 77.29% 77.44% +0.15%
==========================================
Files 470 471 +1
Lines 61495 61405 -90
==========================================
+ Hits 47533 47557 +24
+ Misses 10401 10297 -104
+ Partials 3561 3551 -10
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. |
4b77c02
to
ae23c64
Compare
Signed-off-by: husharp <jinhao.hu@pingcap.com>
ae23c64
to
e912e85
Compare
for i := 1; i <= totalStore; i++ { | ||
leaderCount := regions.GetStoreLeaderCount(uint64(i)) | ||
if !isUniform(leaderCount, totalRegion/totalStore) { | ||
simCase.Checker = func(stores []*metapb.Store, regions *core.RegionsInfo, _ []info.StoreStats) bool { |
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.
Do we still need this checker?
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.
yes, I think we can keep the logic for previous cases
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.
LGTM except for the lint issue.
Signed-off-by: husharp <jinhao.hu@pingcap.com>
@okJiang: adding LGTM is restricted to approvers and reviewers in OWNERS files. In response to this: 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. |
/merge |
@nolouch: We have migrated to builtin 👉 Please use
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 ti-community-infra/tichi repository. |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: niubell, nolouch, okJiang, rleungx 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 |
What problem does this PR solve?
Issue Number: Ref #8135
What is changed and how does it work?
support deleting a specified store
can execute
curl --location --request POST 'http://127.0.0.1:20180/event?event=down-node&node-id=6'
for example, in
balance-leader
caseCheck List
Tests
Release note