Support for Single Node Clusters (issue 411) #454

alexott · 2021-01-04T15:07:44Z

this should fix #411

azcli status

TestAccClusterResource_CreateClusterWithLibraries (222.85s) <= has to be fixed
~~TestAccDatabricksDBFSFile_CreateViaSource~~ (0.57s) <= can be ignored
~~TestAccDatabricksPermissionsResourceFullLifecycle (0.80s)~~ <= can be ignored
TestAccDeleteInvalidMountFails (11.86s) <= could you test if we can make mounts from single node clusters?...
~~TestAccGroupMemberResource (17.73s)~~
~~TestAccSecretAclResourceDefaultPrincipal (63.33s)~~
~~TestAccSecretResource (18.47s)~~
~~TestAccServicePrincipalResource (10.71s)~~
~~TestAccTokenResource (7.59s)~~
TestAzureAccClusterResource_CreateClusterViaInstancePool (267.38s)
access.TestAccPermissionsClusterPolicy (21.53s)
access.TestAccPermissionsClusters (297.11s)
access.TestAccPermissionsInstancePool (16.17s)
access.TestAccPermissionsJobs (17.79s)
access.TestAccPermissionsNotebooks (22.75s)
access.TestAccPermissionsTokens (14.98s)
access/acceptance.TestAccInitialManagePrincipals (3.04s)
access/acceptance.TestAccInitialManagePrincipalsGroup (2.53s)
access/acceptance.TestAccSecretAclResource (27.52s)
access/acceptance.TestAccSecretScopeResource (22.91s)
compute.TestAccContext (55.76s)
compute.TestAccInstancePools (5.62s)
compute.TestAccLibraryCreate (68.14s)
compute.TestAccListClustersIntegration (262.62s)
compute.TestAzureAccNodeTypes (2.77s)
compute/acceptance.TestAccClusterPolicyResourceFullLifecycle (34.33s)
compute/acceptance.TestAccJobResource (10.51s)
identity.TestAccCreateToken (4.30s)
identity.TestAccCreateUser (11.61s)
identity.TestAccFilterGroup (4.76s)
identity.TestAccGroup (26.48s)
identity.TestAccReadUser (4.26s)
identity/acceptance.TestAccGroupResource (35.01s)
identity/acceptance.TestAccGroupResource_verify_entitlements (25.96s)
identity/acceptance.TestAccUserResource (26.98s)
internal/sanity.TestAccMissingResourcesInWorkspace (5.60s)
internal/sanity.TestAccMissingResourcesInWorkspace/Cluster_Policies (0.46s)
internal/sanity.TestAccMissingResourcesInWorkspace/Cluster_Policies_Delete (0.50s)
internal/sanity.TestAccMissingResourcesInWorkspace/Clusters (0.23s)
internal/sanity.TestAccMissingResourcesInWorkspace/DBFS_Files (0.63s)
internal/sanity.TestAccMissingResourcesInWorkspace/Groups (0.69s)
internal/sanity.TestAccMissingResourcesInWorkspace/Instance_Pools (0.24s)
internal/sanity.TestAccMissingResourcesInWorkspace/Jobs (0.21s)
internal/sanity.TestAccMissingResourcesInWorkspace/Notebooks (0.23s)
internal/sanity.TestAccMissingResourcesInWorkspace/Secret_ACLs (0.22s)
internal/sanity.TestAccMissingResourcesInWorkspace/Secret_Scopes (0.16s)
internal/sanity.TestAccMissingResourcesInWorkspace/Secrets (0.26s)
internal/sanity.TestAccMissingResourcesInWorkspace/Tokens (1.11s)
internal/sanity.TestAccMissingResourcesInWorkspace/Users (0.66s)
internal/sanity.TestAccMutiworkspaceUsedFromNormalMode (6.62s)
storage.TestAccCreateFile (15.12s)
storage.TestAccInvalidSecretScopeFails (6.15s)
storage.TestAccSourceOnInvalidMountFails (33.68s)
storage/acceptance.TestAccDatabricksDBFSFile_CreateViaContent (29.04s)
workspace/acceptance.TestAccNotebookResourceScalability (24.50s)
workspace/acceptance.TestAccWorkspaceConfFullLifecycle (11.47s)

this should fix #411

compute/resource_job.go

nfx · 2021-01-04T15:14:04Z

@alexott could you attach the output of test.out file with test report from make test-azcli or make test-azsp?

codecov · 2021-01-04T15:22:14Z

Codecov Report

Merging #454 (5d94130) into master (7a01703) will increase coverage by 0.05%.
The diff coverage is 68.18%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #454      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   81.20%   81.26%   +0.05%     
==========================================
  Files          68       68              
  Lines        5193     5236      +43     
==========================================
+ Hits         4217     4255      +38     
- Misses        655      660       +5     
  Partials      321      321

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
compute/model.go	`76.31% <ø> (ø)`
compute/resource_cluster_policy.go	`84.84% <ø> (ø)`
storage/adls_gen1_mount.go	`100.00% <ø> (ø)`
storage/adls_gen2_mount.go	`100.00% <ø> (ø)`
storage/azure_blob_mount.go	`94.91% <ø> (ø)`
storage/mounts.go	`67.60% <0.00%> (-6.82%)`	⬇️
compute/resource_cluster.go	`72.64% <100.00%> (+4.43%)`	⬆️
compute/resource_job.go	`85.08% <100.00%> (+5.87%)`	⬆️

alexott · 2021-01-04T15:22:34Z

Running the tests again (this will take some time) - there are failures that aren't directly related to this PR...

alexott · 2021-01-04T15:35:04Z

test-report.log

Terraform 0.14 produces the warning ``` Terraform 0.13 and earlier allowed provider version constraints inside the provider configuration block, but that is now deprecated and will be removed in a future version of Terraform. To silence this warning, move the provider version constraint into the required_providers block. ``` the change should work on Terraform 0.12 as well

alexott · 2021-01-04T18:22:47Z

One thing is that with current design, the num_workers is always in the JSON payload, even if autoscale is specified. But autoscale always wins. This could be reworked into declaring the ClusterNumWorkers as pointer to int32 and using omitempty, but then when we'll need to write everywhere:

numWorkers := int32(X)
Cluster{NumWorkers: &numWorkers....}

@nfx WDYT?

compute/acceptance/job_test.go

compute/resource_cluster.go

compute/resource_job.go

compute/resource_job_test.go

nfx · 2021-01-05T12:32:04Z

scripts/azcli-integration/main.tf

@@ -1,5 +1,10 @@
+terraform {


does it work with terraform 0.12? :) plenty of customers still use two-release old version.

nfx · 2021-01-05T13:00:22Z

One thing is that with current design, the num_workers is always in the JSON payload, even if autoscale is specified. But autoscale always wins. This could be reworked into declaring the ClusterNumWorkers as pointer to int32 and using omitempty, but then when we'll need to write everywhere:
numWorkers := int32(X)
Cluster{NumWorkers: &numWorkers....}
@nfx WDYT?

it should ideally be handled with omitempty. I still don't understand why it doesn't work as expected. @pietern, you were programming GoLang full time for couple of years - do you know the intricacies of Go JSON marshalling and omitempty for integers?

@alexott , there are two options available

Marshaller and Umarshaller implementation for compute.Cluster and compute.ClusterInfo (I guess it's more elegant and protected from errors)
changing int to int pointer

if you decide to change it to int pointer, besides of changing 17 direct invocation places, you'd need add special handling in:

StructToSchema - https://github.com/databrickslabs/terraform-provider-databricks/blob/master/internal/reflect_resource.go#L158
check if StructToData still works - https://github.com/databrickslabs/terraform-provider-databricks/blob/master/internal/reflect_resource.go#L349
DataToStructPointer - https://github.com/databrickslabs/terraform-provider-databricks/blob/master/internal/reflect_resource.go#L380

pietern · 2021-01-05T13:57:55Z

@nfx Looking at the Go tests, omitempty on an int field should work as expected, see encoding/json/encode_test.go. The field Optionals.Io will be zero-initialised and is not included in the encoded output.

alexott · 2021-01-05T14:27:39Z

@nfx it works as designed - if it's 0, then it's omitted, but it's not what we want - we need to output 0 if autoscale is not provided... I'll think about custom marshaller

nfx · 2021-01-05T15:04:51Z

@alexott i trust your years of C++ programming to make the best decision on int pointer vs custom marshaller for those structs :) it's equal amount of code, as far as i see it.

alexott · 2021-01-06T13:45:42Z

@nfx comments are addressed. I went with custom serialization of JSON for Cluster struct (and added more checks into it).
Tested with Terraform 0.12.29, 0.13.5

nfx · 2021-01-06T16:07:24Z

Makefile

+
+install-tf-0.12: build
+	@echo "✓ Installing provider for Terraform 0.12 ..."
+	@mkdir -p '$(HOME)/.terraform.d/plugins/$(shell go version | awk '{print $$4}' | sed 's#/#_#')/'


tf12 doesn't actually need any dir version prefix. look at installation instructions:

curl https://raw.githubusercontent.com/databrickslabs/databricks-terraform/master/godownloader-databricks-provider.sh | bash -s -- -b $HOME/.terraform.d/plugins

my testing setup is: $PATH has 0.12 binary, terraform13 and terraform14 for other version as well.

nfx · 2021-01-06T16:07:27Z

Makefile

+	@echo "✓ Use the following configuration for Terraform 0.12 to enable the version you've built"
+	@echo ""
+	@echo 'provider "databricks" {'
+	@echo '  version = "0.3.0"'


version pinning is not really needed for 0.12, 🤷 . it's going against installer script we provide

with current make install it doesn't fine provider, unfortunately...

Even after removing ~/.terraform.d ?...

Ok, it works if I do install like our install script, and remove the version. I'll remove this target completely...

nfx · 2021-01-06T16:08:06Z

compute/acceptance/cluster_test.go

-		repo = "https://mavencentral.org"
-		exclusions = ["slf4j:slf4j"]
+	library {
+		maven {


thanks for doing this :)

nfx · 2021-01-06T16:09:02Z

compute/clusters.go

 	"sort"
 	"strings"
 	"time"

 	"github.com/databrickslabs/databricks-terraform/common"
 	"github.com/hashicorp/terraform-plugin-sdk/v2/helper/resource"
+	"github.com/ulule/deepcopier"


why do we need external dependency? can we do without it?

copying of the data using reflection is kind of black magic (for me), I've tried to implement it myself, but gave up after several tries - maybe if I spend more time, I could do it, but not sure that this is a best use of the time

Frankly speaking, it works without this custom marshaling - it simply sends both num_workers & autoscale if both present, and control plane always prefer autoscale. I simply afraid that it may stop this way at some point of time, and we'll need to do hotfix release...

Single node clusters aren’t major dbu bringers, so I’m okay with that risk.

Additional libraries just require more processes and adding it just to use in one place might be an overkill :(

My main concern around this marshalling - if API stop accept both num_worker & autoscale, this will affect everything, not just single node. If you're ok, I'll revert that commit.

This reverts commit a2294b8.

This reverts commit 714d35f.

nfx

Will merge after running acceptance tests locally :)

alexott added 2 commits January 4, 2021 16:05

Support for Single Node Clusters (issue 411)

1eab397

this should fix #411

fix for acceptance test

f00ecf7

nfx reviewed Jan 4, 2021

View reviewed changes

compute/resource_job.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

fix lint problem

7c7af4e

alexott added 4 commits January 4, 2021 16:59

fix acceptance test that uses notebooks

0043c4c

fix for one more test

a3f62f9

fix for one more acceptance test

6a0ac77

nfx requested changes Jan 5, 2021

View reviewed changes

forgot to commit go.sum

da3bb97

alexott added 5 commits January 5, 2021 18:44

addressing easy review comments, didn't touch num_workers yet

ad02883

added acceptance test for single node cluster

595383a

use get latest spark version instead of hardcoded value

615c355

implement custom JSON marshaller for Cluster struct

714d35f

add Makefile goal for installation for Terraform 0.12

a2294b8

nfx requested changes Jan 6, 2021

View reviewed changes

alexott added 3 commits January 7, 2021 09:42

Revert "add Makefile goal for installation for Terraform 0.12"

4679cbb

This reverts commit a2294b8.

Revert "implement custom JSON marshaller for Cluster struct"

7480acc

This reverts commit 714d35f.

use single-node cluster for mounts

ef35303

alexott requested a review from nfx January 7, 2021 16:44

nfx approved these changes Jan 12, 2021

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'master' into issue-411

5d94130

nfx merged commit dacd91d into master Jan 22, 2021

nfx deleted the issue-411 branch January 22, 2021 16:21

m1nkeh mentioned this pull request Feb 17, 2021

[ISSUE] Cannot Provision 'Single Node' Cluster #525

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Support for Single Node Clusters (issue 411) #454

Support for Single Node Clusters (issue 411) #454

alexott commented Jan 4, 2021 •

edited

nfx commented Jan 4, 2021

codecov bot commented Jan 4, 2021 •

edited

alexott commented Jan 4, 2021

alexott commented Jan 4, 2021 •

edited

alexott commented Jan 4, 2021

nfx Jan 5, 2021

nfx commented Jan 5, 2021

pietern commented Jan 5, 2021

alexott commented Jan 5, 2021

nfx commented Jan 5, 2021

alexott commented Jan 6, 2021

nfx Jan 6, 2021

nfx Jan 6, 2021

alexott Jan 6, 2021

nfx Jan 7, 2021

alexott Jan 7, 2021

nfx Jan 6, 2021

nfx Jan 6, 2021

alexott Jan 6, 2021

alexott Jan 6, 2021

nfx Jan 7, 2021

alexott Jan 7, 2021

nfx left a comment

Support for Single Node Clusters (issue 411) #454

Support for Single Node Clusters (issue 411) #454

Conversation

alexott commented Jan 4, 2021 • edited

azcli status

nfx commented Jan 4, 2021

codecov bot commented Jan 4, 2021 • edited

Codecov Report

alexott commented Jan 4, 2021

alexott commented Jan 4, 2021 • edited

alexott commented Jan 4, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

nfx commented Jan 5, 2021

pietern commented Jan 5, 2021

alexott commented Jan 5, 2021

nfx commented Jan 5, 2021

alexott commented Jan 6, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

nfx left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

alexott commented Jan 4, 2021 •

edited

codecov bot commented Jan 4, 2021 •

edited

alexott commented Jan 4, 2021 •

edited