-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 382
Conversation
@jdef
jdef
left a comment
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.
I believe that this PR clarifies the original intent of topology matching, thanks!
I'm undecided on the risk factor, and have limited brain cycles to spend here at the moment. Curious if anyone else in the community is concerned about potential breakage this language change might imply.
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.
... from a node if at least one of the volume's accessible topologies is a superset of ...
because a volume can have multiple accessible topologies
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.
I've added "union of", since I am already using the term of set theory.
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.
.. is a subset of at least one of the volume's accessible topologies.
Describe what to expect when the accessible_topology of node and volume does not match exactly.
What type of PR is this?
What this PR does / why we need it:
Describe what to expect when the accessible_topology of node and volume does not match exactly.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce an API-breaking change?: