Added env variable for cloud-provider

[jdnurme]

What type of PR is this?

/kind feature

What this PR does / why we need it:

This allows the cloud provider to be specified as an environment variable in preparation for cloud provider extraction.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

NONE

NONE

Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.:

[k8s-ci-robot]

@jdnurme: This issue is currently awaiting triage.

If a SIG or subproject determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the triage/accepted label and provide further guidance.

The triage/accepted label can be added by org members by writing /triage accepted in a comment.

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]

Hi @jdnurme. 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.

[zouyee]

/ok-to-test

[SergeyKanzhelev]

I don't know the history here, can you please take a look whether KUBERNETES_PROVIDER does the same and maybe needs to be aligned. Also I noticed this env var already used in some places. Just want to make sure there are not conflicts or such. lgtm otherwise

[cheftako]

I don't know the history here, can you please take a look whether KUBERNETES_PROVIDER does the same and maybe needs to be aligned. Also I noticed this env var already used in some places. Just want to make sure there are not conflicts or such. lgtm otherwise

I believe @jdnurme is trying to have a flag which only controls the cloud-provider flag passed in to Kubelet/KCM/KAS so that we can test the relevant feature gate. (

kubernetes/pkg/features/kube_features.go

Line 540 in ad99a59

DisableCloudProviders featuregate.Feature = "DisableCloudProviders"

)

[jdnurme]

I don't know the history here, can you please take a look whether KUBERNETES_PROVIDER does the same and maybe needs to be aligned. Also I noticed this env var already used in some places. Just want to make sure there are not conflicts or such. lgtm otherwise

I believe @jdnurme is trying to have a flag which only controls the cloud-provider flag passed in to Kubelet/KCM/KAS so that we can test the relevant feature gate. (

kubernetes/pkg/features/kube_features.go

Line 540 in ad99a59

DisableCloudProviders featuregate.Feature = "DisableCloudProviders"

)

Correct, this flag is intended for testing with cloud providers disabled.

[SergeyKanzhelev]

yes, I understand this. I see that some scripts are using KUBERNETES_PROVIDER for the same purpose, thus the question on whether any of them cross-called. I didn't look seep.

Also I see this:

kubernetes/cluster/log-dump/log-dump.sh

Line 537 in ff696d8

local -r cloud_provider="${KUBERNETES_PROVIDER}"

and wonder if there may be any confusions with the name of local var and env var.

Again, I didn't see any red flags, just want to make sure we reuse things or clean up if there is a chance.

[jdnurme]

yes, I understand this. I see that some scripts are using KUBERNETES_PROVIDER for the same purpose, thus the question on whether any of them cross-called. I didn't look seep.

Also I see this:

kubernetes/cluster/log-dump/log-dump.sh

Line 537 in ff696d8

local -r cloud_provider="${KUBERNETES_PROVIDER}"

and wonder if there may be any confusions with the name of local var and env var.
Again, I didn't see any red flags, just want to make sure we reuse things or clean up if there is a chance.

I believe that is slightly different, simply because the KUBERNETES_PROVIDER variable seems to be specific to kubernetes platforms. In that link i see "gke" as the value being replaced. Cloud provider is non-specific to whether or not the platform is integrated with kubernetes. In this instance it's replacing "gce". I'm not confident these can be used interchangeably so I think the safest option is to keep "CLOUD_PROVIDER" as separate. In my tests, I am running against GCE, not GKE.

[SergeyKanzhelev]

/lgtm

[SergeyKanzhelev]

/triage acceptes
/priority important-soon

[k8s-ci-robot]

@SergeyKanzhelev: The label(s) triage/acceptes cannot be applied, because the repository doesn't have them.

In response to this:

/triage acceptes
/priority important-soon

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.

[jdnurme]

/assign yujuhong

[cheftako]

The CLOUD_PROVIDER variable is already used here. I would suggest switching this to something like CLOUD_PROVIDER_FLAG. Its more descriptive and not yet used.

[dims]

@jdnurme please see one pending comment from @cheftako #106241 (comment)

[cheftako]

/lgtm
/approve

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: cheftako, jdnurme, SergeyKanzhelev

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:

• cluster/gce/OWNERS [cheftako]

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

[k8s-triage-robot]

The Kubernetes project has merge-blocking tests that are currently too flaky to consistently pass.

This bot retests PRs for certain kubernetes repos according to the following rules:

• The PR does have any do-not-merge/* labels
• The PR does not have the needs-ok-to-test label
• The PR is mergeable (does not have a needs-rebase label)
• The PR is approved (has cncf-cla: yes, lgtm, approved labels)
• The PR is failing tests required for merge

You can:

• Review the full test history for this PR
• Prevent this bot from retesting with /lgtm cancel or /hold
• Help make our tests less flaky by following our Flaky Tests Guide

/retest