Recalculate health check params on BC/THC removal #2192

DamianSawicki · 2023-07-06T15:24:14Z

The purpose of the present PR is to skip the function mergeUserSettings() when the removal of a BackendConfig or TransparentHealthCheck annotation is detected (or the removal of a health check specification from a BackendConfig). The rationale is that by removing custom annotations, the user should expect falling back to the default (or Readiness Probe) health check parameters and invoking mergeUserSettings() effectively preserves the custom setup.

k8s-ci-robot · 2023-07-06T15:24:24Z

Hi @DamianSawicki. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes 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.

code-elinka · 2023-07-06T15:47:17Z

/ok-to-test

pkg/flags/flags.go

pkg/healthchecks/healthchecks.go

kl52752 · 2023-07-07T09:12:33Z

pkg/healthchecks/healthchecks.go

@@ -218,10 +261,13 @@ func (h *HealthChecks) sync(hc *translator.HealthCheck, backendConfigHCConfig *b
 		return "", err
 	}

+	// Do not merge the existing settings and perform the full diff in calculateDiff.
+	var recalculate bool = thcConf.THCOptInOnSvc || h.shouldRecalculateOnBCRemoval(existingHC, backendConfigHCConfig) || h.shouldRecalculateOnTHCRemoval(existingHC, thcConf.THCOptInOnSvc)


I think it should be called reconfigureHC and why not using ":=" instead of "var"?

extract those ors to new function like shouldReconfigureHC

Done.

why not using ":=" instead of "var"?

No particular reason. Is one preferred over the other?

pkg/healthchecks/healthchecks.go

kl52752 · 2023-07-07T09:33:12Z

pkg/healthchecks/healthchecks_test.go

+		}
+	}
+
+	/*


why this is commented out?

Can't remember exactly, but it's possible that I realised that the bug fixed in #2181 existed while writing this. The behaviour described in the commented out test case is incorrect, and I will remove this case. Btw. now we have similar (but correct) cases in TestCustomHealthcheckRemoval.

pkg/healthchecks/healthchecks_test.go

kl52752 · 2023-07-07T09:52:04Z

pkg/healthchecks/healthchecks_test.go

+		healthchecker *HealthChecks
+		hc            *translator.HealthCheck
+		bchcc         *backendconfigv1.HealthCheckConfig
+		want          bool


what does "want" stands for? want recalculation? please rename

what does "want" stands for?

It stands for the return value of the tested function, like in the pattern got-want. Don't you think this name makes sense?

I renamed the tested functions and the test function in v2, please let me know if you still recommend renaming want to something else.

pkg/healthchecks/healthchecks_test.go

kl52752 · 2023-07-07T10:27:13Z

pkg/healthchecks/healthchecks_test.go

+		"ILB":     translator.DescriptionForDefaultILBHealthChecks,
+		"NEG":     translator.DescriptionForDefaultNEGHealthChecks,
+		"RP":      translator.DescriptionForHealthChecksFromReadinessProbe,
+		"BC":      (&healthcheck.HealthcheckInfo{HealthcheckConfig: healthcheck.BackendConfigHC}).GenerateHealthcheckDescription(),


BC is taking priority over THC so THC removal should be NoOp for BC based hc

Sure. This test is probably overly complicated, but it tests a very simple thing: that shouldRecalculateOnTHCRemoval returns true only for beforeKey == "THC" && afterKey == "NO-THC", and false otherwise. It does not look at annotations for before, so the case you are describing is beforeKey == BC && afterKey == NO-THC, in which case false should be returned. It is correct.

DamianSawicki · 2023-07-07T17:05:34Z

/cc swetharepakula

kl52752

Overall LGTM, waiting to @swetharepakula to look at.

kl52752 · 2023-07-10T08:34:27Z

pkg/healthchecks/healthchecks.go

+		return false
+	}
+	// The existing HC is configured via Transparent Health Checks, but the annotation has been removed.
+	if hcDesc.Config == healthcheck.TransparentHC && !thcOptIn {


nit: can be just return hcDesc.Config == healthcheck.TransparentHC && !thcOptIn

Nice! Fixed.

kl52752 · 2023-07-10T08:40:41Z

pkg/healthchecks/healthchecks_test.go

 					return hc
 				}
 				gotHC := filter(*computeHCs[0])
 				wantHC := filter(*tc.wantComputeHC)

 				if !reflect.DeepEqual(gotHC, wantHC) {
-					t.Fatalf("Compute healthcheck is:\n%s, want:\n%s", pretty.Sprint(gotHC), pretty.Sprint(wantHC))
+					t.Errorf("Compute healthcheck is:\n%s, want:\n%s", pretty.Sprint(gotHC), pretty.Sprint(wantHC))


why changing that?

I changed it during debugging to be able to see more and remembered to revert it... but then I forgot in the end.

swetharepakula

Mostly nits. Otherwise LGTM

swetharepakula · 2023-07-10T18:21:34Z

pkg/healthchecks/healthcheck.go

@@ -57,28 +57,28 @@ func calculateDiff(old, new *translator.HealthCheck, c *backendconfigv1.HealthCh

 	// TODO(bowei): why don't we check Port, timeout etc.

-	if c == nil && !thcEnabled {
+	if c == nil && !fullDiff {
 		return &changes
 	}

 	// This code assumes that the changes wrt to `c` has been applied to `new`.


To make these checks a little simpler can we not check if fullDIff is false and return early?

Well, I also think that calculateDiff is overly complicated and these conditions in practise duplicate the functionality of mergeUserSettings. Eventually, there should be no early returns, just comparisons old.X != new.X. Having said that, health checks is a very sensitive issue, and a refactor here should be a separate and well-tested PR, perhaps additionally consulted. For now, I'm just renaming fullDiff -> fullDiffOnRecalculation to make clear what we do.

swetharepakula · 2023-07-10T18:30:02Z

pkg/healthchecks/healthchecks.go

+	return hcDesc.Config == healthcheck.TransparentHC && !thcOptIn
+}
+
+func (h *HealthChecks) shouldRecalculateHC(existingHC *translator.HealthCheck, backendConfigHCConfig *backendconfigv1.HealthCheckConfig, thcConf utils.THCConfiguration) bool {


nit: i would unmarshal the healthcheck once in here and pass it to the various validation functions.

swetharepakula · 2023-07-10T18:31:30Z

pkg/healthchecks/healthchecks.go

@@ -183,6 +196,37 @@ func (h *HealthChecks) emitTHCEvents(hc *translator.HealthCheck, thcEvents utils

 }

+func (h *HealthChecks) isBackendConfigRemoved(hc *translator.HealthCheck, bchcc *backendconfigv1.HealthCheckConfig) bool {
+	if !h.healthcheckFlags.EnableRecalculationOnBackendConfigRemoval {


nit: based on the name, this is a little weird that we don't consider the BackendConfig removed based on a flag.

Instead I would think we would check the flag at where this would be called, and only if enabled we would check if the backend config was removed.

Either a rename or slight change in the code to make it match.

Instead I would think we would check the flag at where this would be called, and only if enabled we would check if the backend config was removed.

Done.

kl52752 · 2023-07-11T12:31:44Z

/lgtm

k8s-ci-robot · 2023-07-11T12:32:08Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: DamianSawicki, kl52752

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~~ [kl52752]

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 added do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. labels Jul 6, 2023

k8s-ci-robot requested review from code-elinka and gauravkghildiyal July 6, 2023 15:24

k8s-ci-robot added the needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. label Jul 6, 2023

k8s-ci-robot added the size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. label Jul 6, 2023

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 Jul 6, 2023

kl52752 reviewed Jul 7, 2023

View reviewed changes

DamianSawicki force-pushed the bc-removal branch from bf377fb to 6a02832 Compare July 7, 2023 14:14

k8s-ci-robot added size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Jul 7, 2023

DamianSawicki force-pushed the bc-removal branch 2 times, most recently from 6a1ba74 to 2844d38 Compare July 7, 2023 15:56

k8s-ci-robot requested a review from swetharepakula July 7, 2023 17:05

kl52752 reviewed Jul 10, 2023

View reviewed changes

DamianSawicki force-pushed the bc-removal branch 2 times, most recently from 042d2f3 to f51f667 Compare July 10, 2023 08:54

DamianSawicki marked this pull request as ready for review July 10, 2023 16:57

k8s-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Jul 10, 2023

Recalculate health check params on BC/THC removal

b3e3fb8

DamianSawicki force-pushed the bc-removal branch from f51f667 to b3e3fb8 Compare July 10, 2023 17:05

swetharepakula reviewed Jul 10, 2023

View reviewed changes

Recalc hc params: simplifications after review

79f98b5

k8s-ci-robot assigned kl52752 Jul 11, 2023

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jul 11, 2023

k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Jul 11, 2023

k8s-ci-robot merged commit 9bef6d1 into kubernetes:master Jul 11, 2023
5 checks passed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Recalculate health check params on BC/THC removal #2192

Recalculate health check params on BC/THC removal #2192

DamianSawicki commented Jul 6, 2023

k8s-ci-robot commented Jul 6, 2023

code-elinka commented Jul 6, 2023

kl52752 Jul 7, 2023

DamianSawicki Jul 7, 2023

kl52752 Jul 7, 2023

DamianSawicki Jul 7, 2023

DamianSawicki Jul 7, 2023

kl52752 Jul 7, 2023

DamianSawicki Jul 7, 2023

kl52752 Jul 7, 2023

DamianSawicki Jul 7, 2023

DamianSawicki commented Jul 7, 2023

kl52752 left a comment

kl52752 Jul 10, 2023

DamianSawicki Jul 10, 2023

kl52752 Jul 10, 2023

DamianSawicki Jul 10, 2023

DamianSawicki Jul 10, 2023

swetharepakula left a comment

swetharepakula Jul 10, 2023

DamianSawicki Jul 11, 2023

swetharepakula Jul 10, 2023

DamianSawicki Jul 11, 2023

swetharepakula Jul 10, 2023

DamianSawicki Jul 11, 2023

kl52752 commented Jul 11, 2023

k8s-ci-robot commented Jul 11, 2023

+              		}
+              	}
+              	/*

Recalculate health check params on BC/THC removal #2192

Recalculate health check params on BC/THC removal #2192

Conversation

DamianSawicki commented Jul 6, 2023

k8s-ci-robot commented Jul 6, 2023

code-elinka commented Jul 6, 2023

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

DamianSawicki commented Jul 7, 2023

kl52752 left a 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

swetharepakula left a 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

kl52752 commented Jul 11, 2023

k8s-ci-robot commented Jul 11, 2023