Skip to content

Revert "Randomize pod name (#12117)"#12192

Closed
potiuk wants to merge 1 commit intoapache:masterfrom
PolideaInternal:revert-pod-name-randomization
Closed

Revert "Randomize pod name (#12117)"#12192
potiuk wants to merge 1 commit intoapache:masterfrom
PolideaInternal:revert-pod-name-randomization

Conversation

@potiuk
Copy link
Member

@potiuk potiuk commented Nov 9, 2020

This reverts commit 7825be5.


^ Add meaningful description above

Read the Pull Request Guidelines for more information.
In case of fundamental code change, Airflow Improvement Proposal (AIP) is needed.
In case of a new dependency, check compliance with the ASF 3rd Party License Policy.
In case of backwards incompatible changes please leave a note in UPDATING.md.

@boring-cyborg boring-cyborg bot added the k8s label Nov 9, 2020
@potiuk potiuk requested review from ashb, kaxil and mik-laj November 9, 2020 09:27
@potiuk
Copy link
Member Author

potiuk commented Nov 9, 2020

cc: @szczeles -> I revert this one for now if it proves that the recent failures of one of the K8S tests are caused by it (it's very likely). The root cause was that the K8S tests were not running in the PR with such a localized change (bug in the selective checks definition). It's been since fixed.

The failing test was TestKubernetesPodOperatorSystem.test_pod_failure() and this is an Integration test with actual K8S cluster run via Kind.

I have a kind request if that proves to be true @szczeles. Could you please recreate the PR and fix the failing test along the way? I have also created a PR and description #12163 which I hope to merge after this one is fixed. It has some improvements and a detailed description on how to test and debug this - I'd love if you could try it out and see if this is an easy task.

The bad thing seems that it is not reproducible locally for me and I am not 100 sure why. Maybe we can work together with @dimberman and find out how to fix it.

@potiuk
Copy link
Member Author

potiuk commented Nov 9, 2020

Apologies for any problems, but I think some good things (like improved test framework for K8S tests) might come out of it.

@potiuk
Copy link
Member Author

potiuk commented Nov 9, 2020

@szczeles -> I recalled we have #12171 -> so possibly that one will fix the failing K8S and we will be able to close that one :)

@ashb
Copy link
Member

ashb commented Nov 9, 2020

Closing this as the fix is merged and I don't think we need this PR anymore.

@ashb ashb closed this Nov 9, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants