feat: Support TargetGroupBinding on targets outside the cluster's VPC

[ikosenn]

Issue

fixes #3084

Description

This PR adds VPC ID to the TargetGroupBinding Spec so as to allow registration in target groups that are created with in a VPC that is different from that which the controller is running in.

Checklist

• Added tests that cover your change (if possible)
• Added/modified documentation as required (such as the README.md, or the docs directory)
• Manually tested
• Made sure the title of the PR is a good description that can go into the release notes

BONUS POINTS checklist: complete for good vibes and maybe prizes?! 🤯

• Backfilled missing tests for code in same general area 🎉
• Refactored something and made the world a better place 🌟

[linux-foundation-easycla]

The committers listed above are authorized under a signed CLA.

• ✅ login: ikosenn / name: Ian Kosen (c40ee7f, ef25167, e65c8cd, 2c7482c, 5beb917, 2f25cfc, 752da0c, 0a27108)

[k8s-ci-robot]

Welcome @ikosenn!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/aws-load-balancer-controller 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes-sigs/aws-load-balancer-controller has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @ikosenn. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs 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.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[nathanpreen]

Hey @ikosenn how can we get this over the line?

[ikosenn]

@johngmyers whenever you have a minute kindly take a look at this PR. Follow up from #3085 (comment)

[nathanpreen]

Hey @johngmyers / @M00nF1sh any chance we could get this looked at?

[ikosenn]

@oliviassss kindly assist in reviewing this PR.

[oliviassss]

Can we have a separate unit test where the vpcId is not set?

[ikosenn]

comment addressed

[oliviassss]

Can you please also add a sample yaml file here?

[ikosenn]

comment addressed

[oliviassss]

Probably better to call out via the logger that the specified VPC in TGB is different from cluster vpc.

[ikosenn]

comment addressed

[oliviassss]

/ok-to-test

[ikosenn]

/retest

[oliviassss]

@ikosenn, please check the error here, looks introduced by this PR
{"level":"error","ts":"2024-02-05T03:26:44Z","msg":"Reconciler error","controller":"ingress","object":{"name":"e2e-group.aa96c17f"},"namespace":"","name":"e2e-group.aa96c17f","reconcileID":"9b7875ec-ad84-47e1-b09e-af5d2f140af8","error":"admission webhook \"vtargetgroupbinding.elbv2.k8s.aws\" denied the request: TargetGroupBinding update may not change these fields: spec.vpcId"}

Maybe try to only run this failed test suite in your local to debug
Summarizing 1 Failure: [TIMEDOUT] test ingresses with multiple path and backends with podReadinessGate enabled [It] IngressGroup across namespaces should behaves correctly /home/prow/go/src/github.com/kubernetes-sigs/aws-load-balancer-controller/test/e2e/ingress/multi_path_backend_test.go:101
you can run this cmd with a focus on the specific test suite

ginkgo -timeout 2h -v -r test/e2e -- \
  --kubeconfig=${CLUSTER_KUBECONFIG} \
  --cluster-name=${CLUSTER_NAME} \
  --aws-region=${AWS_REGION} \
  --aws-vpc-id=${cluster_vpc_id} \

[ikosenn]

@ikosenn, please check the error here, looks introduced by this PR {"level":"error","ts":"2024-02-05T03:26:44Z","msg":"Reconciler error","controller":"ingress","object":{"name":"e2e-group.aa96c17f"},"namespace":"","name":"e2e-group.aa96c17f","reconcileID":"9b7875ec-ad84-47e1-b09e-af5d2f140af8","error":"admission webhook \"vtargetgroupbinding.elbv2.k8s.aws\" denied the request: TargetGroupBinding update may not change these fields: spec.vpcId"}

Maybe try to only run this failed test suite in your local to debug Summarizing 1 Failure: [TIMEDOUT] test ingresses with multiple path and backends with podReadinessGate enabled [It] IngressGroup across namespaces should behaves correctly /home/prow/go/src/github.com/kubernetes-sigs/aws-load-balancer-controller/test/e2e/ingress/multi_path_backend_test.go:101 you can run this cmd with a focus on the specific test suite

ginkgo -timeout 2h -v -r test/e2e -- \
  --kubeconfig=${CLUSTER_KUBECONFIG} \
  --cluster-name=${CLUSTER_NAME} \
  --aws-region=${AWS_REGION} \
  --aws-vpc-id=${cluster_vpc_id} \

I figured out why the tests were timing out. Working on a fix. Thanks for the tip. I had to wait for 2hrs for all e2e tests to run before it got to the problematic one. This will definitely save me sometime. Thanks.

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: ikosenn, M00nF1sh

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [M00nF1sh]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 78.04878% with 9 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 17.92%. Comparing base (b63a294) to head (e65c8cd).

Files	Patch %	Lines
pkg/targetgroupbinding/resource_manager.go	0.00%	8 Missing ⚠️
pkg/deploy/elbv2/target_group_binding_manager.go	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3479      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   17.83%   17.92%   +0.09%     
==========================================
  Files         175      175              
  Lines       29046    29085      +39     
==========================================
+ Hits         5180     5214      +34     
- Misses      23527    23533       +6     
+ Partials      339      338       -1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[k8s-ci-robot]

New changes are detected. LGTM label has been removed.

[ikosenn]

Hey @oliviassss and @M00nF1sh. I pushed some tests to improve coverage in the latest commit.
Also if you have a minute kindly help me understand why this failed https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/aws-load-balancer-controller/actions/runs/8000114447/job/22100889749?pr=3479. Running make crds doesn't introduces any new changes

[oliviassss]

@ikosenn, thank you for adding the tests. I have this commit to fix the failure in ci unit-test, maybe a rebase?
#3580

[ikosenn]

@ikosenn, thank you for adding the tests. I have this commit to fix the failure in ci unit-test, maybe a rebase?
#3580

@oliviassss Thanks for the tip. I had already rebased. Looks like I need to update some packages. Was missing --- on the yaml file e65c8cd. Hopefully that fixes it.

[ikosenn]

Hi @oliviassss and @M00nF1sh. Should I go ahead and update the packages that failed the vulnerability checks? Looks like minor/patch version upgrades

[oliviassss]

@ikosenn, I think we need to upgrade controller-runtime, but it has some breaking changes that will break the LBC codes. I'll investigate later, please check my comment here: #3598 (comment)

[shraddhabang]

@ikosenn, please check the error here, looks introduced by this PR {"level":"error","ts":"2024-02-05T03:26:44Z","msg":"Reconciler error","controller":"ingress","object":{"name":"e2e-group.aa96c17f"},"namespace":"","name":"e2e-group.aa96c17f","reconcileID":"9b7875ec-ad84-47e1-b09e-af5d2f140af8","error":"admission webhook \"vtargetgroupbinding.elbv2.k8s.aws\" denied the request: TargetGroupBinding update may not change these fields: spec.vpcId"}

I figured out why the tests were timing out. Working on a fix. Thanks for the tip. I had to wait for 2hrs for all e2e tests to run before it got to the problematic one. This will definitely save me sometime. Thanks.

Hey @ikosenn , I am getting the same reconcile error on my setup when I am trying your feature for testing? It happens for the existing tgbs in ingresses. Any idea?

[ikosenn]

@ikosenn, please check the error here, looks introduced by this PR {"level":"error","ts":"2024-02-05T03:26:44Z","msg":"Reconciler error","controller":"ingress","object":{"name":"e2e-group.aa96c17f"},"namespace":"","name":"e2e-group.aa96c17f","reconcileID":"9b7875ec-ad84-47e1-b09e-af5d2f140af8","error":"admission webhook \"vtargetgroupbinding.elbv2.k8s.aws\" denied the request: TargetGroupBinding update may not change these fields: spec.vpcId"}

I figured out why the tests were timing out. Working on a fix. Thanks for the tip. I had to wait for 2hrs for all e2e tests to run before it got to the problematic one. This will definitely save me sometime. Thanks.

Hey @ikosenn , I am getting the same reconcile error on my setup when I am trying your feature for testing? It happens for the existing tgbs in ingresses. Any idea?

@shraddhabang I think I have a hunch. It must be because of the fix I did for the e2e to pass I had to add VpcId to the elbv2model.TargetGroupBindingSpec which works well for new ingress TGBs but if you had one already it would add the VpcId to the spec and that would fail the check here. Will get a solution ASAP.

[shraddhabang]

@ikosenn Hey, Do you have any update on the fix?

[ikosenn]

@ikosenn Hey, Do you have any update on the fix?

@shraddhabang working on it right now. Was struggling to get a solution that I liked but I have one now. Going to run upgrade tests on the three components (TG, ingress, service) to ensure backwards compatibility isn’t broken. Should have this up for review by Monday morning.