feature(BackendRuntime): support lifecycle hook fields for BackendRuntime#303
feature(BackendRuntime): support lifecycle hook fields for BackendRuntime#303InftyAI-Agent merged 2 commits intoInftyAI:mainfrom
Conversation
|
no sure if we need integration or e2e test to verify whether this function meets the expected |
5b3133c to
fae9d23
Compare
3248956 to
e91df2e
Compare
aca4f30 to
e6dde20
Compare
one integration test makes sense to me. |
|
E2e test is somehow too slow because we have to download the models. What we need to do is just make sure the lifecycle already injects, the capacity of lifecycle is not something we should touch it's the capacity of kubernetes, we always assume that it works as expected. |
61f3462 to
b8e9897
Compare
|
/retest |
|
The new e2e test is running in the background, but the failure check is still there, I may need time to figure out the reason. |
13cf0a1 to
151d4bc
Compare
|
/kind feature |
|
/kind api-change |
kerthcet
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we need an integration test with the fakeBackend to prove the validation works.
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }), | ||
| ginkgo.Entry("Playground with backend name configured", &testValidatingCase{ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| ginkgo.Entry("Playground with backend name configured", &testValidatingCase{ | |
| ginkgo.Entry("Playground with fake-backend", &testValidatingCase{ |
|
Kindly remind: no longer need to squash the commits, we'll merge with the PR title, one commit per PR. |
…time Signed-off-by: googs1025 <googs1025@gmail.com>
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }), | ||
| ginkgo.Entry("Playground with Playground with fake-backend", &testValidatingCase{ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| ginkgo.Entry("Playground with Playground with fake-backend", &testValidatingCase{ | |
| ginkgo.Entry("Playground with fake-backend", &testValidatingCase{ |
|
/lgtm |
|
Next we need to add the configurations for the in-tree backendRuntimes, for example: vLLM |
/kind feature
What this PR does / why we need it
Which issue(s) this PR fixes
Fixes #288 (comment)
Special notes for your reviewer
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?