Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
This is just a followup to #1941 which used an unsatisfying way to get podNames from processGroupIDs.
I am not sure that this is much better, but they do seem like useful functions in the transition away from selecting by processGroupID.
It will be much easier to see the changes if you view by commit to avoid looking at the second commit, which changes test pod names to include processClass in the name, which is an expectation of built-in functions (GetPodName will index-out-of-bounds).
Type of change
Discussion
I wonder if there should be some explicit creation function which does not allow FDB pods to have invalid names, as I suspect that it is not only GetPodName which could have undefined behavior if expectations aren't met.
Testing
Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Unit tests?
Manual testing?
Unit tests, manual test of restart.
Do we need to perform additional testing once this is merged, or perform in a larger testing environment?
Documentation
Docstrings have been added
Follow-up
Are there any follow-up issues that we should pursue in the future?
Arguably this could be progress towards not allowing useProcessGroupID and working more with podNames when possible, but we had trouble finding that issue before. Perhaps we should raise one?
Does this introduce new defaults that we should re-evaluate in the future?
No