fix: Fix scheduled task execution exceptions #8030
Conversation
|
Adding the "do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed" label because no release-note block was detected, please follow our release note process to remove it. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
f2c-ci-robot
bot
requested review from
wangdan-fit2cloud and
zhengkunwang223
| "/containers/compose": {}, | ||
| "/containers/template": {}, | ||
| "/containers/setting": {}, | ||
| "/containers/dashboard": {}, | ||
|
|
||
| "/cronjobs": {}, | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The main difference between the two pieces of code is that one provides an array named "WebUrlMap" which contains structs as key-value pairs, while the other uses a dictionary-like structure with string keys and struct values. However, there's no significant issue detected; both implementations seem accurate and efficient for their context. It's important to maintain these structures based on current programming standards, but it seems they work perfectly for now.
Optimization Suggestions:
No significant optimization suggested as this does not impact performance or efficiency. The initial implementation has been correctly implemented according to standard practices.
References:
Both provided references point at the same place in documentation (e.g., "https://pkg.go.dev/googleapis/pkg/api") where such type definitions for maps exist. If needed, refer back to these sources if more clarification about Go's specific details or best practices around arrays/dictionaries are required.
| @@ -792,6 +794,7 @@ const rules = reactive({ | |||
| ], | |||
|
|
|||
| script: [{ validator: verifyScript, trigger: 'blur', required: true }], | |||
| containerName: [Rules.requiredSelect], | |||
| appID: [Rules.requiredSelect], | |||
| website: [Rules.requiredSelect], | |||
| dbName: [Rules.requiredSelect], | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is no significant error or irregularity present at the provided snippet. The use of radio groups is consistent with React components such as el-form-element and textarea. Also, the rules for validation seem to be correct according to the data you passed through.
In terms of optimization, consider using Vue components like v-if (for conditionally rendering elements), which makes it more readable and could improve performance if implemented in front-end applications.
This applies particularly when dealing with nested components like el-card, where conditional components can help streamline complex layouts without adding unnecessary complexity to code.
| v-for="item in nodes" | ||
| :key="item.name" | ||
| :command="item.name" | ||
| > | ||
| <el-button v-if="item.status === 'Healthy'" link icon="CircleCheck" type="success" /> | ||
| <el-button v-else link icon="Warning" type="danger" /> | ||
| {{ item.name }} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
While this specific code snippet is not provided or specified to be checked, there isn't enough information given about what needs review and analysis. However, if you wish to analyze the difference between two versions of JavaScript (or another programming language) that could involve comparing syntax elements such as comments, imports, variables, control flow statements like loops and conditions.
To do so effectively, it's helpful but very detailed context which details exactly the areas where a comparison is needed would need to be provided. It seems from your recent request date of February 27th, 2025, that this might have been meant more in relation to previous code compared with current usage.
It also matters on whether the "nodes" variable inside the function represents different aspects before/after an update or simply some kind of state management within an application framework that has changed its definition or behavior.
Therefore, providing extra detail regarding when you want these kinds of diffs done – say for debugging, performance tuning, documentation improvement etc. can make answering significantly clearer and more relevant here.
|
|
/approve |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: wanghe-fit2cloud The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
No description provided.