Skip to content

Conversation

@zulinx86
Copy link
Contributor

@zulinx86 zulinx86 commented Feb 7, 2025

Reason

VmmConfig is parsed from Firecracker config JSON file. I don't know why we used different field names than names in the JSON format, which just makes it difficult to read code and readers have to keep the field mapping in their mind.

Changes

Remove unnecessary field renaming of VmmConfig.

License Acceptance

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under
the terms of the Apache 2.0 license. For more information on following Developer
Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check
CONTRIBUTING.md.

PR Checklist

  • I have read and understand CONTRIBUTING.md.
  • I have run tools/devtool checkstyle to verify that the PR passes the
    automated style checks.
  • I have described what is done in these changes, why they are needed, and
    how they are solving the problem in a clear and encompassing way.
  • [ ] I have updated any relevant documentation (both in code and in the docs)
    in the PR.
  • [ ] I have mentioned all user-facing changes in CHANGELOG.md.
  • [ ] If a specific issue led to this PR, this PR closes the issue.
  • [ ] When making API changes, I have followed the
    Runbook for Firecracker API changes.
  • I have tested all new and changed functionalities in unit tests and/or
    integration tests.
  • [ ] I have linked an issue to every new TODO.

  • This functionality cannot be added in rust-vmm.

VmmConfig is parsed from Firecracker config JSON file. I don't know why
we used different field names than names in the JSON format, which just
makes it difficult to read code and readers have to keep the field
mapping in their mind.

Signed-off-by: Takahiro Itazuri <[email protected]>
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 7, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 83.16%. Comparing base (89f2cb2) to head (377cd19).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #5030   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   83.16%   83.16%           
=======================================
  Files         245      245           
  Lines       26647    26647           
=======================================
  Hits        22161    22161           
  Misses       4486     4486           
Flag Coverage Δ
5.10-c5n.metal 83.61% <100.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
5.10-m5n.metal 83.59% <100.00%> (ø)
5.10-m6a.metal 82.80% <100.00%> (ø)
5.10-m6g.metal 79.59% <100.00%> (ø)
5.10-m6i.metal 83.59% <100.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
5.10-m7g.metal 79.59% <100.00%> (ø)
6.1-c5n.metal 83.60% <100.00%> (ø)
6.1-m5n.metal 83.59% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
6.1-m6a.metal 82.80% <100.00%> (ø)
6.1-m6g.metal 79.59% <100.00%> (ø)
6.1-m6i.metal 83.58% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
6.1-m7g.metal 79.59% <100.00%> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@zulinx86 zulinx86 added the Status: Awaiting review Indicates that a pull request is ready to be reviewed label Feb 7, 2025
@zulinx86 zulinx86 merged commit 44a50b4 into firecracker-microvm:main Feb 7, 2025
7 of 8 checks passed
@zulinx86 zulinx86 deleted the tiny_refactor branch February 7, 2025 15:38
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Status: Awaiting review Indicates that a pull request is ready to be reviewed

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants