Skip to content
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

Fix EKS encryption config value comparisons #3040

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 21, 2021

Conversation

jon-fearer
Copy link
Contributor

@jon-fearer jon-fearer commented Dec 16, 2021

What type of PR is this?
/kind bug

What this PR does / why we need it:
This PR addresses a couple of issues that are preventing EKS-managed clusters from fully reconciling when encryption is enabled:

  • Update EncryptionConfig.Provider comparison to dereference pointers and compare KeyARN
  • Fix a couple of other equality comparisons that were flipped (checking true vs false)
  • Add assertions to TestCompareSlices (g.Expect(...) vs g.Expect(...).To(...))

Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):
Fixes #2908

Special notes for your reviewer:
This PR does not address the refactor work here, but I am happy to add that if it's still wanted.

Checklist:

  • squashed commits
  • includes documentation
  • adds unit tests
  • adds or updates e2e tests

Release note:

Fix EKS encryption configuration comparison issues that blocked building a new cluster with encryption enabled

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. needs-priority needs-triage Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `triage/foo` label and requires one. labels Dec 16, 2021
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @jon-fearer. 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.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Dec 16, 2021
@sedefsavas
Copy link
Contributor

/ok-to-test

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. and removed needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Dec 16, 2021
@sedefsavas sedefsavas added the priority/important-soon Must be staffed and worked on either currently, or very soon, ideally in time for the next release. label Dec 16, 2021
@sedefsavas sedefsavas added the triage/accepted Indicates an issue or PR is ready to be actively worked on. label Dec 16, 2021
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the needs-triage Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `triage/foo` label and requires one. label Dec 16, 2021
@sedefsavas sedefsavas added this to the v1.3.0 milestone Dec 16, 2021
@richardcase richardcase self-requested a review December 16, 2021 20:26
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Dec 16, 2021
@sedefsavas
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm
/approve

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: sedefsavas

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:

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

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. labels Dec 21, 2021
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit 02084df into kubernetes-sigs:main Dec 21, 2021
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot modified the milestones: v1.3.0, v1.x Dec 21, 2021
richardchen-db pushed a commit to databricks/cluster-api-provider-aws-1 that referenced this pull request Jan 14, 2023
…n-config

Fix EKS encryption config value comparisons
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. priority/important-soon Must be staffed and worked on either currently, or very soon, ideally in time for the next release. release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. triage/accepted Indicates an issue or PR is ready to be actively worked on.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

AWSManagedControlPlane EKS encryption config incorrectly reconciles
3 participants