- QueueingHint implementation for NodeAffinity is reverted because we found potential scenarios where events that make Pods schedulable could be missed. ([#122327](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/122327), [@sanposhiho](https://github.com/sanposhiho)) [SIG Scheduling]

    deletion of the Node object, deletion of the instance in the cloud provider,
    or force deletion of the pod from the api-server).
    This helps prevent "split brain" scenarios in clustered applications by
    ensuring that unreachable pods will not be presumed dead unless some
    "fencing" operation has provided one of the above indications.

    void testIsTrustedDomain_DfsDisabled() throws SmbAuthException {
        // Scenario: DFS is disabled in the configuration.
        when(mockConfig.isDfsDisabled()).thenReturn(true);
        assertFalse(dfsImpl.isTrustedDomain(mockContext, "anydomain.com"));
    }

    @Test
    void testIsTrustedDomain_NoUserDomain() throws SmbAuthException {
        // Scenario: The user credentials do not specify a domain.

     * Tests that <code>a:2.0</code> wins in the scenario:
     * <pre>
     * a:1.0
     * a:2.0
     * </pre>
     */
    @Test
    void testEqual() {
        ResolutionNode a1n = createResolutionNode(a1);
        ResolutionNode a2n = createResolutionNode(a2);

        assertResolveConflict(a2n, a1n, a2n);
    }

    /**
     * Tests that <code>a:2.0</code> wins in the scenario:
     * <pre>
     * a:2.0
     * a:1.0

- DRA kubelet: Fixed the kubelet to also clean up `ResourceSlices` in some additional failure scenarios (driver was removed forcibly or crashed and did not restart). ([#132058](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/132058), [@pohly](https://github.com/pohly)) [SIG Node and Testing]

### Concorrência é melhor que paralelismo?

Não! Essa não é a moral da história.

Concorrência é diferente de paralelismo. E é melhor em cenários **específicos** que envolvam um monte de espera. Por isso, geralmente é muito melhor do que paralelismo para desenvolvimento de aplicações web. Mas não para tudo.

Então, para equilibrar tudo, imagine a seguinte historinha:

     * Tests that <code>a:1.0</code> wins in the scenario:
     * <pre>
     * a:1.0
     * a:2.0
     * </pre>
     */
    @Test
    void testEqual() {
        ResolutionNode a1n = createResolutionNode(a1);
        ResolutionNode a2n = createResolutionNode(a2);

        assertResolveConflict(a1n, a1n, a2n);
    }

    /**
     * Tests that <code>a:2.0</code> wins in the scenario:
     * <pre>
     * a:2.0
     * a:1.0

     * Tests that <code>a:1.0</code> wins in the scenario:
     * <pre>
     * a:1.0
     * a:2.0
     * </pre>
     */
    @Test
    void testEqual() {
        ResolutionNode a1n = createResolutionNode(a1);
        ResolutionNode a2n = createResolutionNode(a2);

        assertResolveConflict(a1n, a1n, a2n);
    }

    /**
     * Tests that <code>a:2.0</code> wins in the scenario:
     * <pre>
     * a:2.0
     * a:1.0

     * Tests that <code>a:1.0</code> wins in the scenario:
     * <pre>
     * a:1.0
     * a:2.0
     * </pre>
     */
    @Test
    void testEqual() {
        ResolutionNode a1n = createResolutionNode(a1);
        ResolutionNode a2n = createResolutionNode(a2);

        assertResolveConflict(a1n, a1n, a2n);
    }

    /**
     * Tests that <code>a:1.0</code> wins in the scenario:
     * <pre>
     * a:2.0
     * a:1.0

**Note**: You probably don't need `contextvars`, and you should probably avoid using them. But they are powerful and useful in some advanced scenarios, for example, migrating from code that used Flask's `g` semi-global variable.