Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Silence WARN[0000] vmType vz: ignoring networks[0]: [Metric] #3010

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 11, 2024
Merged

Silence WARN[0000] vmType vz: ignoring networks[0]: [Metric] #3010

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
1 change: 1 addition & 0 deletions pkg/vz/vz_driver_darwin.go
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -130,6 +130,7 @@ func (l *LimaVzDriver) Validate() error {
"Lima",
"Socket",
"MACAddress",
"Metric",
"Interface",
); len(unknown) > 0 {
logrus.Warnf("vmType %s: ignoring networks[%d]: %+v", *l.Instance.Config.VMType, i, unknown)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It is easy to grep for the warning text and understand why it happens but the warning should make it clear that this is a validation warning, and the issue is unknown property. Maybe something like:

validate vmType vz: ignoring unknown property networks[1]: "Metric"

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

SGTM

If you are going to work on this, you should also take a look at the corresponding code in the pkg/wsl2/wsl_driver_windows.go file to try to keep things in sync (I noticed vz uses ignoring while wsl2 uses Ignoring, which caused me to miss them on my initial grepping).

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Of course validation is going to be a big rabbit hole; look at #2512 for more thoughts on how it should be refactored.

Personally I don't want to touch it (validation) until I had a chance to replace the current FillDefaults with the upcoming code from template assembly because that might change things around anyways.

Copy link
Member

@nirs nirs Dec 11, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't have time for this now, added #3011

Expand Down
Loading