[Resources] Max Hourly Cost#9132
Conversation
Summary of ChangesHello, 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 significantly enhances resource provisioning capabilities by introducing a Highlights
🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console. Using Gemini Code AssistThe 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
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 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. Footnotes
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
The pull request introduces max_hourly_cost as a new parameter across various catalog and cloud provider files, allowing users to specify a maximum hourly cost for instances. This new parameter is integrated into resource selection logic, particularly for filtering and sorting instances based on price. The API version has been updated, and backward compatibility for older API servers is handled. Overall, the changes are well-integrated and extend the resource management capabilities.
kevinmingtarja
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM, thanks @kyuds! let's run quicktest before we merge
|
/quicktest-core |
Resolve #8766
Tested (run the relevant ones):
bash format.sh/smoke-test(CI) orpytest tests/test_smoke.py(local)/smoke-test -k test_name(CI) orpytest tests/test_smoke.py::test_name(local)/quicktest-core(CI) orpytest tests/smoke_tests/test_backward_compat.py(local)