Added sweeper.wait_for_delete for debugging purposes - #18973
Conversation
|
Hi there, I'm the Modular magician. I've detected the following information about your changes for commit b562c6e: Diff reportYour PR generated the following diffs in downstream repositories:
Test reportAnalytics
Affected Service Packages
Step 1: Replaying Mode Action takenFound 8 affected test(s) by replaying old test recordings. Starting RECORDING based on the most recent commit. Click here to see the affected tests
View the replaying VCR build log Step 2: Recording Mode
Caution Issues requiring attention before PR completion 🔴 Initial Recording Failed: Some tests failed during the recording step. See the table above for details. Please address these issues to complete your PR. If you believe these detections are incorrect or unrelated to your change, please raise the concern with your reviewer. View the recording VCR build log or the debug logs folder for detailed results. |
fbb0309
| } | ||
| {{- if $.Sweeper.WaitForDelete }} | ||
| err = {{ $.ClientNamePascal }}OperationWaitTime( | ||
| config, res, config.Project, "Deleting Network", config.UserAgent, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you generalize the code? This will generate confusing logs as-is.
I'd recommend noting that this will generate invalid code for LROs on the flag, and adding a prefix to the setting so it's easy to spot as invalid if committed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for catching that I accidentally left "Network" in there - that's an easy fix.
I assume that by "invalid" you just mean that we don't want to have someone accidentally turn this on and have sweepers suddenly take forever. That seems like a reasonable concern - even if it's rare for someone off our team to modify this field, it could happen and would be easy to miss - & it's an easy fix. Did you have a particular prefix in mind? I could've sworn we had a precedent for this but I'm not finding it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry, invalid code for resources without LROs
Don't recall a precedent offhand
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we had something related to TGC or the Go Rewrite where we didn't want people off our team to ever use it, so it had some kind of warning prefix. But that's not really relevant since that's not what you meant.
I'll make it more clear that this only works for operation-based resources.
This is useful to have as a flag - I used it to debug why some networks / subnetworks couldn't be deleted.
Also, added sweeper regions for networkattachment
Release Note Template for Downstream PRs (will be copied)
See Write release notes for guidance.