Skip to content

Skip reservation name check validator#5248

Closed
saara-tyagi27 wants to merge 3 commits intoGoogleCloudPlatform:developfrom
saara-tyagi27:skip-reservation-check-validator
Closed

Skip reservation name check validator#5248
saara-tyagi27 wants to merge 3 commits intoGoogleCloudPlatform:developfrom
saara-tyagi27:skip-reservation-check-validator

Conversation

@saara-tyagi27
Copy link
Contributor

@saara-tyagi27 saara-tyagi27 commented Feb 16, 2026

Summary

Reservation name check validation logic is not supported for dynamically created and future reservations.
Logic has been added to skip them for the respective cases.

Key Changes:

  1. Skip check for future_reservations.
  2. Skip check for examples/hpc-slurm-static.yaml during integration test.

Submission Checklist

NOTE: Community submissions can take up to 2 weeks to be reviewed.

Please take the following actions before submitting this pull request.

  • Fork your PR branch from the Toolkit "develop" branch (not main)
  • Test all changes with pre-commit in a local branch #
  • Confirm that "make tests" passes all tests
  • Add or modify unit tests to cover code changes
  • Ensure that unit test coverage remains above 80%
  • Update all applicable documentation
  • Follow Cluster Toolkit Contribution guidelines #

@saara-tyagi27 saara-tyagi27 added the release-chore To not include into release notes label Feb 16, 2026
@gemini-code-assist
Copy link
Contributor

Summary of Changes

Hello @saara-tyagi27, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request enhances the handling of reservation validations within the system. It introduces a mechanism to bypass certain reservation checks for variables identified as "future" reservations, providing more flexibility for dynamically created or future-dated reservations. Additionally, it updates a specific cloud build test to explicitly skip a reservation existence validator, aligning the test environment with scenarios where reservations might be created dynamically.

Highlights

  • Reservation Validation Logic: Modified the defaults function in pkg/validators/validators.go to exclude reservation variables containing "future" from the resKeyRegex match, effectively skipping reservation checks for future reservations.
  • Cloud Build Configuration Update: Updated the slurm-gcp-v6-static.yaml cloud build script to dynamically inject a skip: true configuration for the test_reservation_exists validator into examples/hpc-slurm-static.yaml, specifically for the hpc-slurm-static blueprint.
Changelog
  • pkg/validators/validators.go
    • Modified the defaults function to skip reservation name checks for variables containing "future".
  • tools/cloud-build/daily-tests/builds/slurm-gcp-v6-static.yaml
    • Added a sed command to skip the test_reservation_exists validator for the hpc-slurm-static blueprint in the daily test build.
Activity
  • No human activity has been recorded on this pull request yet.
Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature Command Description
Code Review /gemini review Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary /gemini summary Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment @gemini-code-assist Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help /gemini help Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

  1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution.

Copy link
Contributor

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Code Review

The pull request introduces a change to skip reservation name validation for variables containing "future" in pkg/validators/validators.go. Additionally, it modifies a Cloud Build daily test script to dynamically skip the test_reservation_exists validator for the hpc-slurm-static blueprint. The feedback suggests improving the robustness and maintainability of the YAML modification within the test script by using dedicated tools or separate files for complex logic, aligning with repository rules for readability and maintainability.

@saara-tyagi27
Copy link
Contributor Author

/gcbrun

@saara-tyagi27 saara-tyagi27 marked this pull request as ready for review February 17, 2026 05:52
@saara-tyagi27 saara-tyagi27 requested review from a team and samskillman as code owners February 17, 2026 05:52
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

release-chore To not include into release notes

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant