-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 74
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[Bug]: NodePool's queuedProvisioning
field doesn't take effect
#570
Comments
Hello! I am facing the same issue, using the same versions. I use But I would like to know how to resolve this in My error output for reference:
Update: same thing happening on |
My bad... I thought that the marketplace docs always show the latest version, which is true for the provider version but false for API version. The default is v1beta1 even though the latest is v1beta2. |
Did you manage to make it work? Because I do keep getting the same error even on |
@vfarcic I believe that the marketplace lists storage version in the provider page. All versions of a resource could be found under the version option box in the resource page. It would be clearer, in my humble opinion, to list both the storage version and the latest version in the provider page. @miraai I haven't tested, but I don't expect I don't know how we are supposed to handle cases like this. I'll investigate deeper. |
@mergenci totally understand, but no matter what I do, either if its Cluster and node pool work properly, everything is connected as it should. Do you have any advice how I can deal with this in the meantime? Using default node pool does not bring this error up, but I need autoscaling abilities for some clusters. Thank you! |
@miraai I see 🤔 At the moment, I don't have anything in mind that might help. Can you post example manifests here, so that it's easier for us to reproduce your issue? |
Sure thing! These are the resources, just using this composition for testing:
Composite resource if it matters:
We are still in early stages of adopting crossplane for GCP, but it would be cool if i did not have to worry about this going forward. It could of course be that I am missing something small that's causing this :D |
Regarding my above comment that
@ulucinar rightfully asked how beta fields are represented in the Terraform schema. It really seems like there's no such thing as a beta field in the schema. The PR that introduced |
@miraai, this issue is similar to #561. We will address as I explained in my comment there. We might have a special case for this resource, because we have to handle the beta |
queuedProvisioning
field doesn't take effect
Do we know when there is likely to be a fix for this? Upgrading to the latest provider breaks all of our existing nodepools. |
@withnale, I'm not able to share a timeline. Conversion webhook issues, like this issue, are our top priority at the moment. |
@mergenci Thank you for looking into this! I will stick with default node pool for the PoC phase we are in, so hopefully this gets resolved by the time I get out of PoC. Will we get notified here when it is done or should i follow the other issue as well? |
@miraai you can keep an eye on the releases section for this provider or the #announcements channel in the Crossplane Slack workspace to get notified when the fix is released. |
Is there an existing issue for this?
Affected Resource(s)
container.gcp.upbound.io/v1beta2 - NodePool
Resource MRs required to reproduce the bug
No response
Steps to Reproduce
Create a nodepool attached to a GKE cluster.
What happened?
Since recently (one of the newer releases of the provider), after a nodepool is created, it continuously tries to use
queued_provisioning
. The same setup worked in older versions of the provider. According to the docs, there is no parameter that can be used to define queued provisioning.Relevant Error Output Snippet
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: