UpdateOrCreateToken get secrets err handling optimization

[helen-frank]

Signed-off-by: helen haitao.zhang@daocloud.io

What type of PR is this?

/kind feature

What this PR does / why we need it:

when UpdateOrCreateToken get secrets, if the error is not a NotFound, the error is thrown in time

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

NONE

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

[k8s-ci-robot]

@helen-frank: 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 @helen-frank. 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.

[pacoxu]

/ok-to-test

[helen-frank]

/retest

[neolit123]

can this be written like this?

	if err != nil && !apierrors.IsNotFound(err) {
		return err
	}	
	if secret != nil && failIfExists {
		return errors.Errorf("a token with id %q already exists", token.Token.ID)
	}

[helen-frank]

got it, thanks

[neolit123]

when UpdateOrCreateToken get secrets, if the error is not a NotFound, the error is thrown in time

can you explain in more detail what errors you are seeing and under what conditions?

[helen-frank]

when UpdateOrCreateToken get secrets, if the error is not a NotFound, the error is thrown in time

can you explain in more detail what errors you are seeing and under what conditions?

This is not a bug, this kind of treatment is to deal with the error in time, not to continue no matter what the error is.

[helen-frank]

/retest

[helen-frank]

/retest

[neolit123]

/approve

i think this is safe to change, if we don't retry the API calls (wrap UpdateOrCreateTokens in a retry loop?)
i could not find any cases in the kubeadm code that do the retries.

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: helen-frank, neolit123

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:

• cmd/kubeadm/OWNERS [neolit123]

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

[helen-frank]

/approve

i think this is safe to change, if we don't retry the API calls (wrap UpdateOrCreateTokens in a retry loop?) i could not find any cases in the kubeadm code that do the retries.

Is a good idea, maybe I can add a concurrent processing to it, what do you think
If you think this is feasible, I can do this job as soon as possible.

[neolit123]

Is a good idea, maybe I can add a concurrent processing to it, what do you think
If you think this is feasible, I can do this job as soon as possible.

no i think we should keep it the way it is, right now.
we don't have much concurrent code in kubeadm.

[helen-frank]

Is a good idea, maybe I can add a concurrent processing to it, what do you think
If you think this is feasible, I can do this job as soon as possible.

no i think we should keep it the way it is, right now. we don't have much concurrent code in kubeadm.

Got it, I will do it as soon as possible to retry the development of logic.

[neolit123]

Got it, I will do it as soon as possible to retry the development of logic.

i meant we should probably keep it the way it is for now without retry.
if we decide to add retry to this code, ideally it should follow some of the existing retry patterns.

perhaps for a separate PR.

[helen-frank]

/cc @pacoxu

[nameYULI]

/lgtm

[k8s-ci-robot]

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: 179d3f3697ea90bba76b24fb2f8af4bda93f72aa