Add a Watch method to the RetryClient #624
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
jbarrick-mesosphere
requested review from
kensipe,
alenkacz,
gerred and
fabianbaier
fabianbaier
approved these changes
Jul 22, 2019
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What type of PR is this?
/kind feature
What this PR does / why we need it:
This adds a basic
Watchmethod to the RetryClient which allows a user to Watch all events on a specific resource for use in integration tests.This is needed to allow @fabianbaier to write a test for the step delete behavior in #599. Eventually, this will be used to implement #600 when we replace the test harness's polling with watching events.
Special notes for your reviewer:
This is probably not the most efficient way to implement the watches... I figured we would start here and optimize the internals of the method as necessary, but if anyone knows how to make it better we could do that here too.
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: