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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Revert "Don't register the kubeletconfig group with the default Scheme" #51008

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 21, 2017
Merged

Revert "Don't register the kubeletconfig group with the default Scheme" #51008

merged 1 commit into from
Aug 21, 2017

Conversation

shyamjvs
Copy link
Member

Reverts #50789

To unblock SQ - #51007

cc @mtaufen

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. label Aug 21, 2017
@k8s-github-robot k8s-github-robot added size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. release-note-label-needed labels Aug 21, 2017
@shyamjvs shyamjvs added release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. and removed release-note-label-needed labels Aug 21, 2017
@wojtek-t
Copy link
Member

/lgtm
/approve no-issue

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Aug 21, 2017
@k8s-github-robot
Copy link

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: shyamjvs, wojtek-t

Associated issue: 50789

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

Needs approval from an approver in each of these OWNERS Files:

You can indicate your approval by writing /approve in a comment
You can cancel your approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@k8s-github-robot k8s-github-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Aug 21, 2017
@wojtek-t
Copy link
Member

@shyamjvs - how is it possible that presubmit didn't catch it?

@shyamjvs
Copy link
Member Author

Good question - trying to figure out.

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

k8s-ci-robot commented Aug 21, 2017 •
edited

@shyamjvs: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun them all:

Test name Commit Details Rerun command
pull-kubernetes-kubemark-e2e-gce 5591914 link /test pull-kubernetes-kubemark-e2e-gce

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR.

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. I understand the commands that are listed here.

@shyamjvs
Copy link
Member Author

/test pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-etcd3

@shyamjvs
Copy link
Member Author

All presubmits except kubemark are passing. Merging this manually to unblock submit-queue.

@shyamjvs shyamjvs merged commit f4afdec into master Aug 21, 2017
@shyamjvs shyamjvs deleted the revert-50789-fix-scheme branch August 21, 2017 11:54
@shyamjvs
Copy link
Member Author

Btw - the kubemark presubmit here failed due to a different reason:

I0821 09:35:15.209] Creating new network: e2e-46812
W0821 09:36:02.881] ERROR: (gcloud.compute.networks.create) Could not fetch resource:
W0821 09:36:02.881]  - Quota 'SUBNETWORKS' exceeded.  Limit: 150.0

@kubernetes/test-infra-maintainers This is affecting more and more PRs now.

@shyamjvs
Copy link
Member Author

As @wojtek-t pointed out, some of the networks were leaked. I looked into it, and the runs 46434-46439 of the pr-kubemark job all failed to delete network due to undeleted minion still using it. I'm now manually cleaning it up.

@NickrenREN NickrenREN mentioned this pull request Aug 21, 2017
Closed
mtaufen added a commit to mtaufen/kubernetes that referenced this pull request Aug 21, 2017
@mtaufen
Revert "Merge pull request kubernetes#51008 from kubernetes/revert-50…
a90d816 
…789-fix-scheme"

This reverts commit f4afdec, reversing
changes made to e633a16.

This also fixes a bug where Kubemark was still using the core api scheme
to manipulate the Kubelet's types, which was the cause of the initial
revert.
@adelton adelton mentioned this pull request Aug 22, 2017
Merged
k8s-github-robot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 22, 2017
Merge pull request #51033 from mtaufen/revert-51008-revert-50789-fix-…
c6980e7 
…scheme

Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 50967, 50505, 50706, 51033, 51028)

Revert "Merge pull request #51008 from kubernetes/revert-50789-fix-scheme"

I'm spinning up a cluster right now to test this fix, but I'm pretty sure this was the problem.
There doesn't seem to be a way to confirm from logs, because AFAICT the logs from the hollow kubelet containers are not collected as part of the kubemark test.

**What this PR does / why we need it**:

This reverts commit f4afdec, reversing
changes made to e633a16.

This also fixes a bug where Kubemark was still using the core api scheme
to manipulate the Kubelet's types, which was the cause of the initial
revert.

**Which issue this PR fixes**: fixes #51007

**Release note**:

```release-note
NONE
```

/cc @shyamjvs @wojtek-t
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@mtaufen mtaufen Awaiting requested review from mtaufen

@wojtek-t wojtek-t Awaiting requested review from wojtek-t

Assignees

@wojtek-t wojtek-t

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. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
4 participants
@shyamjvs @wojtek-t @k8s-github-robot @k8s-ci-robot