-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.1k
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
docs: update doc around fetching unscheduled pods using --node= #2359
Conversation
/assign |
/triage accepted |
Sorry, I forgot: The change needs to be made in README.md.tpl and then you'd need to run the make target to regenerate the README file with gomplate. |
README.md
Outdated
| KSM --node parameter | FieldSelector | Note | | ||
| --- | --- | --- | | ||
| --node="node1" | kubectl get pods --field-selector spec.nodeName="node1" | Fetch all pods running on node1 | | ||
| --node="" | kubectl get pods --field-selector spec.nodeName= | Fetch all pods without an assigned node | |
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.
Similar to my comment in #2373 (comment), I don't think that specifying --node=""
is very user friendly.
We could either implicitly do it, or put it in a dedicated flag such as --fetch-unscheduled-pods
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.
Fixed the documentation to --node=
instead of --node=""
. Will it be clearer? Or we prefer --fetch-unscheduled-pods
eb371c6
to
abe3595
Compare
abe3595
to
46c1e9c
Compare
Let's add this once #2388 is in. We can refactor the behavior later. |
/lgtm |
@LaikaN57: changing LGTM is restricted to collaborators In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: CatherineF-dev, LaikaN57 The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
This PR is not needed due to #2388 |
What this PR does / why we need it:
How does this change affect the cardinality of KSM: (increases, decreases or does not change cardinality) n/a
Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in
fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)
format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):Fixes #2353