Hi @brandond. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a containerd member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Seems the issue here would be better fixed by just changing getSortedhosts to return an empty list in that case. What is root.Get("host") returning when you provide it the [host] config? It seems that code should handle root.Get("host") returning nil, but is that what it sees.

Seems the issue here would be better fixed by just changing getSortedhosts to return an empty list in that case.

Sure, that'd work too. It didn't seem like there was much point in calling getSortedHosts at all if there are no HostConfigs in the first place, but what you're suggesting is probably a slightly less involved change.

What is root.Get("host") returning when you provide it the [host] config?

I don't know, I didn't poke at the toml parser return; I suspect it just returns an empty tree so that list := append([]string{}, iter.Keys()...) just ends up creating an empty list, which is what gets returned.

Note this fix is not needed in main as we have bumped the toml library major version and the new implementation does not have this issue.

Is this fix needed in 1.6, or not affected?

Can you squash commits and describe the issue in the commit?

/ok-to-test

Hi @brandond can you squash the commit? Then the PR should be ready to be merged?

Is this fix needed in 1.6, or not affected?

I think it's needed in 1.6, I remember seeing the same issue on 1.6

Can we merge this?

I think we were hoping for the submitter (@brandond) to squash the commits and add a description of the fix to the commit message. Maybe we should carry or does anyone have a strong opinion on the squash/comment? We've asked several times

I can rebase and squash, sure.

Done.

Done.

Thanks!

@brandond Is this still relevant to you? I'm coming in to look at old PRs and this one seems to have been approved, but never got merged for some reason. We've recently transitioned 1.7 to focus primarily on GKE's use cases (since @chrishenzie and I are extending maintenance on the branch beyond the rest of the maintainers) and this is not really relevant to GKE, but I'd feel bad closing this since it's been approved and stuck for nearly a year...