Correction on multiple Solver CRs creation #63
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
…ltiple Solver CRs Correct PC Spec when reserving it Solve else statement that prevents linter to correct execution Solve line length that prevents linter to correct execution
andreacv98
approved these changes
May 14, 2024
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Hello everyone.
This PR resolves #29 and #62.
I found the logic of PeeringCandidate reservation scattered across different controllers which prevented the correct execution of the FLUIDOS Node in case of dealing with more than one solver.
Moreover, there was also missed a logic which would re-assign an already available PeeringCandidate that has not been previously reserved to a new Solver CR.
This is needed for correctly execute multiple Solvers using the same PeeringCandidate table with the current implementation.
Looking forward to receiving any feedback.
Thanks,
Francesco