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

refactor(dp-server): remove metadata tracker #12882

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

lahabana
Copy link
Contributor

Motivation

We were tracking the metadata in its own dataplane callbacks.
In practice this metadata was only used inside the sync_tracker which is itself a dataplane callback.

Implementation information

We now keep the metadata directly inside the sync_tracker and access it on each watchdog step.
This makes the code more streamlined and removes a hard to understand abstraction that added little value.

Supporting documentation

Part of #12881

@lahabana lahabana requested a review from a team as a code owner February 18, 2025 13:49
@lahabana lahabana changed the title cleanup(dp-server): remove metadata tracker refactor(dp-server): remove metadata tracker Feb 18, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

Reviewer Checklist

🔍 Each of these sections need to be checked by the reviewer of the PR 🔍:
If something doesn't apply please check the box and add a justification if the reason is non obvious.

  • Is the PR title satisfactory? Is this part of a larger feature and should be grouped using > Changelog?
  • PR description is clear and complete. It Links to relevant issue as well as docs and UI issues
  • This will not break child repos: it doesn't hardcode values (.e.g "kumahq" as an image registry)
  • IPv6 is taken into account (.e.g: no string concatenation of host port)
  • Tests (Unit test, E2E tests, manual test on universal and k8s)
    • Don't forget ci/ labels to run additional/fewer tests
  • Does this contain a change that needs to be notified to users? In this case, UPGRADE.md should be updated.
  • Does it need to be backported according to the backporting policy? (this GH action will add "backport" label based on these file globs, if you want to prevent it from adding the "backport" label use no-backport-autolabel label)

@jijiechen jijiechen self-requested a review February 19, 2025 02:38
@jijiechen
Copy link
Member

Looks good to me.
But can I get this in first to have less conflicts? #12886

@lahabana
Copy link
Contributor Author

Yes but I think the way we fix #12886 doesn't touch this anymore

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants