Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

Conversation

@adrianmoisey
Copy link
Contributor

Reverts #6898

See discussion in #7177

@adrianmoisey adrianmoisey force-pushed the revert-6898-fix-reverse-k8s branch from 6424ba9 to 23888d2 Compare March 10, 2025 16:37
@johnbelamaric
Copy link
Member

@chrisohaver ptal

I still think we should answer these questions, and probably update the DNS spec, and implement to match. Even if the answer to the questions are "do what we used to do", we should document them clearly.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 10, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 57.83%. Comparing base (93c57b6) to head (23888d2).
Report is 1365 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #7194      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   55.70%   57.83%   +2.13%     
==========================================
  Files         224      270      +46     
  Lines       10016    17378    +7362     
==========================================
+ Hits         5579    10051    +4472     
- Misses       3978     6716    +2738     
- Partials      459      611     +152     

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@chrisohaver
Copy link
Member

@chrisohaver ptal

I still think we should answer these questions, and probably update the DNS spec, and implement to match. Even if the answer to the questions are "do what we used to do", we should document them clearly.

I think we should revert.

@chrisohaver
Copy link
Member

chrisohaver commented Mar 12, 2025

IMO, “what we used to do” made sense, and tbh despite having executed the fix, I don’t fully understand the reasoning behind the hostname-only fix and why it was needed.

(That’s not to say I don’t think there was a good reason for it - I’m just admitting that I executed the fix without fully understanding reasoning)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants