Modify the node structure
#401
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #401 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 68.19% 68.39% +0.19%
==========================================
Files 95 95
Lines 20320 20548 +228
==========================================
+ Hits 13857 14053 +196
- Misses 6463 6495 +32 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
- Modify the node structure so as to configure "TI Container" remotely
like "Datalake".
- Rename `Giganto` to `ConnectionlessAgent`.
- Add a `ti_container` field of type `ConnectionlessAgent` within
`node`.
- Modify migration function `migrate_0_29_node`.
- Add migration function `migrate_0_35_node`.
Close: petabi#399
kimhanbeom
force-pushed
the
david/issue-399
branch
from
999d9f8 to
829cfa5
Compare
| @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ use crate::{ | |||
| }; | |||
|
|
|||
| #[derive(Default, Debug, Clone, Serialize, Deserialize, PartialEq)] | |||
| pub struct Giganto { | |||
| pub struct ConnectionlessAgent { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
While Agent has a key for each instance, ConnectionlessAgent does not. Additionally, Agents are represented as a Vec<Agent>, whereas ConnectionlessAgents are instantiated individually, like giganto and ti_container. Furthermore, ConnectionlessAgent includes its status through the AgentStatus field. These differences highlight inconsistencies, and on top of that, the name ConnectionlessAgent doesn't seem ideal to convey the true meaning. I believe we need a better approach to address these inconsistencies and clarify the concept.
GigantotoConnectionlessAgent.ti_containerfield of typeConnectionlessAgentwithinnode.migrate_0_29_node.migrate_0_35_node.Close: #399
Migration Test