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

Don't cache the node config in the CfgVars struct #5433

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jan 15, 2025

Conversation

twz123
Copy link
Member

@twz123 twz123 commented Jan 14, 2025

Description

The node config should be read at most once and then reused. Caching the config in this way shouldn't be necessary.

On the way:

  • Use only the path as parameter to LoadRuntimeConfig. This is the only information needed. Passing just the path instead
    of the full CfgVars struct makes it easier to reason about what is happening.
  • Remove unused vars variable and DeepCopy. The vars variable was never read, and the DeepCopy method was used just to initialize it. Remove both. The original intent was probably not to list the StartupConfigPath in the file written to disk, but since that never worked as intended and there were no problems with it, I think it's okay to leave things as they are.
  • Restructure NewRuntimeConfig test. Use a real config file instead of mocking out the config file loading
    using the private nodeConfig field. Verify that the folder for the runtime config file is created, if it doesn't exist.

Type of change

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
  • Documentation update

How Has This Been Tested?

  • Manual test
  • Auto test added

Checklist:

  • My code follows the style guidelines of this project
  • My commit messages are signed-off
  • I have performed a self-review of my own code
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
  • My changes generate no new warnings
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
  • Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules
  • I have checked my code and corrected any misspellings

This is the only information needed. Passing just the path instead
of the full CfgVars struct makes it easier to reason about what is
happening.

Signed-off-by: Tom Wieczorek <[email protected]>
The vars variable was never read, and the DeepCopy method was used just
to initialize it. Remove both.

The original intent was probably not to list the StartupConfigPath in
the file written to disk, but since that never worked as intended and
there were no problems with it, I think it's okay to leave things as
they are.

Signed-off-by: Tom Wieczorek <[email protected]>
Use a real config file instead of mocking out the config file loading
using the private nodeConfig field. Verify that the folder for the
runtime config file is created, if it doesn't exist.

Signed-off-by: Tom Wieczorek <[email protected]>
The node config should be read at most once and then reused. Caching the
config in this way shouldn't be necessary.

Signed-off-by: Tom Wieczorek <[email protected]>
@twz123 twz123 force-pushed the no-cache-nodeconfig branch from d3b406c to 48c01db Compare January 14, 2025 12:03
@twz123 twz123 marked this pull request as ready for review January 14, 2025 13:39
@twz123 twz123 requested review from a team as code owners January 14, 2025 13:39
Copy link
Collaborator

@ncopa ncopa left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@twz123 twz123 merged commit 7edf778 into k0sproject:main Jan 15, 2025
93 checks passed
@twz123 twz123 deleted the no-cache-nodeconfig branch January 15, 2025 14:49
@twz123 twz123 mentioned this pull request Jan 21, 2025
16 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants