Check upper bound of watch port range for IP Failover configuration #10207
Conversation
|
Sorry, do I need to open issues before creating PRs for bugs like this? I thought they are easy to fix, so I created PRs directly. Ref PR #10204 |
|
@xiangpengzhao no need for issue if it is a trivial fix. |
|
Thanks @mfojtik ! |
|
@xiangpengzhao thanks LGTM [test] |
|
Evaluated for origin test up to 689a1c7 |
|
continuous-integration/openshift-jenkins/test SUCCESS (https://ci.openshift.redhat.com/jenkins/job/test_pr_origin/7662/) |
|
@rajatchopra / @knobunc a merge tag please. Thx |
|
LGTM [merge] |
|
Flake #11315 [merge] |
xiangpengzhao
force-pushed
the
fix-port-check
branch
from
689a1c7 to
4edc81c
Compare
|
Rebased to keep code updated. |
|
I'm not sure if the jenkins failure is caused by outdated code, so I rebase the code. Please comment a new merge tag, thanks! @knobunc |
|
Ben, it seems that this PR has to be re-tested due to my rebase operation. Please label a [test], thanks! @knobunc |
|
[merge] |
|
Evaluated for origin merge up to 4edc81c |
|
continuous-integration/openshift-jenkins/merge SUCCESS (https://ci.openshift.redhat.com/jenkins/job/test_pr_origin/10996/) (Base Commit: f0d0d98) (Image: devenv-rhel7_5302) |
|
Origin Action Required: Please contact #openshift-dev to have this pull request manually reviewed and tested |
We should check the upper bound of watch port range for IP Failover configuration.
Question: Should we return error instead of giving a default port when users configure an invalid value? IMO, we can set default value when users don't specify
--watch-port. But if users give an invalid value, we'd better exit and prompt user to configure again.