-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 37
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
remove path from failpoint #44
Conversation
This looks good for me. cc @ahrtr who had different opinion about the topic. |
dd48698
to
b03711f
Compare
Just as I mentioned in etcd-io/etcd#14727 (comment), it isn't a big deal. Since no feedback from other maintainers. I don't want to be blocked here. I agree to remove the pacakge path, although personally I tend to keep it. |
We don't have e2e test for now, please make sure you manually verify the PR using examples |
Tried using examples.
Also tried same fail point in 2 different packages to test warning. None of the existing unit tests failed after the change, so I'm looking if I can add unit test. |
f443741
to
bf96b6f
Compare
bf96b6f
to
efcdb7e
Compare
@ahrtr FYI with your suggestion there was a deadlock, because register was calling |
efcdb7e
to
36e2fbc
Compare
|
Overall looks good to me with two comments:
|
36e2fbc
to
655baa1
Compare
@ahrtr thanks, addressed both |
Signed-off-by: Bogdan Kanivets <[email protected]>
78e85bd
to
86d8b1b
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
Thank you @lavacat
See etcd-io/etcd#14727