add-action-event

[molei20021]

No description provided.

[volcano-sh-bot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
To complete the pull request process, please assign thor-wl
You can assign the PR to them by writing /assign @thor-wl in a comment when ready.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• pkg/scheduler/OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[molei20021]

#3403

[molei20021]

/assign @lowang-bh

[molei20021]

This is the latest branch. Please take a look. @lowang-bh @googs1025

[googs1025]

you can close #3405 or use rebase command

git rebase -i HEAD~2    2 means you want to rebase commit number
or 
git pull origin master --rebase

[molei20021]

you can close #3405 or use rebase command

git rebase -i HEAD~2    2 means you want to rebase commit number
or 
git pull origin master --rebase

I have closed 3405. there are some conflicts in that pr

[lowang-bh]

I am not sure whether it is necessary to do that?

[molei20021]

I am not sure whether it is necessary to do that?

For example, there are queue1(task1 > task2 > task3 > task4) and queue2(task5 > task6 > task7 > task8). I want task1 and task5 to try schedule first global. So I need the information of whether task1 and task5 has tried to schedule In queue order plugin. Even if queue1 > queue2 and task1 is scheduled, I will force make queue2 > queue1 to schedule task5. The information of whether task is processed by action can by notified by event I added.

[Monokaix]

Hi, this seems conflict with queue design and a little ugly, and the current design is better, if you really need the feature, please give a design detail and re-implement it: )

[googs1025]

Hi, this seems conflict with queue design and a little ugly, and the current design is better, if you really need the feature, please give a design detail and re-implement it: )
There are some discussions under this issue, @Monokaix you can take a look
#3403

[googs1025]

Hi, this seems conflict with queue design and a little ugly, and the current design is better, if you really need the feature, please give a design detail and re-implement it: )

There are some discussions under this issue, @Monokaix you can take a look
#3403

[Monokaix]

Hi, this seems conflict with queue design and a little ugly, and the current design is better, if you really need the feature, please give a design detail and re-implement it: )

There are some discussions under this issue, @Monokaix you can take a look #3403

Yeah, I have seen that, but this implement is a little ugly and misunderstanding.