-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 615
[Fix] kubectl ray create cluster config file CPU overwrites the whole resource requests and limits #3811
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
Closed
Closed
[Fix] kubectl ray create cluster config file CPU overwrites the whole resource requests and limits #3811
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
416e69a
fix: input config does not keep default value
CheyuWu 5434bc2
refactor: merge nested struct config
CheyuWu 0b1bfb5
chore: change to private func
CheyuWu b38d2e3
fix: remove private func testing use TestParseConfigFile instead
CheyuWu 8312c53
refactor: use detach workergroup to simplify the code
CheyuWu 1fefc4d
refactor: merging code for readability mv to private func
CheyuWu File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
Oops, something went wrong.
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
Could this function be simplified a bit ? It seems not need to handle some merges manually.
https://go.dev/play/p/KqVRVqXQVJO
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
Hi @fscnick thanks for reviewing
I initially considered using
mergo.Merge(config, &overrideConfig, mergo.WithOverride)
, but it introduces an unintended side effect when merging slice fields likeworker-groups
.For example, consider the following minimal
config.yaml
:If we directly call:
Then
overrideConfig.WorkerGroups
will completely overwrite the defaultWorkerGroups
defined in config, instead of preserving and partially overriding fields (e.g., memory limits or container settings). This leads to missing default values in the final rendered output. As a result, the merged config will produce:But the expected output should retain default memory settings like:
So, I used a more sophisticated approach to handle this.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
If we omit
mergo.WithOverride
and simply call:Then the fields in overrideConfig will only be merged if they are not already set in
config
. As a result, the WorkerGroups defined inconfig.yaml
will be ignored entirely if the default already includes a value. This leads to the user-provided override being silently ignored.For example, the output might look like this:
Here, the
cpu: 3
specified by the user inconfig.yaml
is not reflected in the final output — the defaultcpu: 2
remains.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.
There are three thoughts about handling this slice.
WorkerGroups
, merge it manually and attach back to config.Transformer
in mergo to skipWorkerGroups
and merge it manually.Transformer
in mergo to merge it directly.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.
Great idea !! thx