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

kubeadm: fixed cleanup upgrade from no-TLS etcd to TLS etcd #71828

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 8, 2018
Merged

kubeadm: fixed cleanup upgrade from no-TLS etcd to TLS etcd #71828

merged 1 commit into from
Dec 8, 2018

Conversation

yuexiao-wang
Copy link
Contributor

@yuexiao-wang yuexiao-wang commented Dec 7, 2018 •
edited

Signed-off-by: yuexiao-wang wang.yuexiao@zte.com.cn

What type of PR is this?

Uncomment only one, leave it on its own line:

/kind api-change
/kind bug

/kind cleanup

/kind design
/kind documentation
/kind failing-test
/kind feature
/kind flake

What this PR does / why we need it:
According to the comments (#71740 (review)), remove the code which should go away for upgrading TLS etcd

Which issue(s) this PR fixes*:

Fixes # kubernetes/kubeadm#1298

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

NONE

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. kind/cleanup Categorizes issue or PR as related to cleaning up code, process, or technical debt. size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. needs-sig Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `sig/foo` label and requires one. needs-priority Indicates a PR lacks a `priority/foo` label and requires one. labels Dec 7, 2018
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @yuexiao-wang. 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.

@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. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. labels Dec 7, 2018
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added area/kubeadm sig/cluster-lifecycle Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Cluster Lifecycle. and removed needs-sig Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `sig/foo` label and requires one. labels Dec 7, 2018
@yuexiao-wang
Copy link
Contributor Author

yuexiao-wang commented Dec 7, 2018 •
edited

@fabriziopandini @neolit123 @rosti @detiber @yagonobre PTAL

@fabriziopandini
Copy link
Member

/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 7, 2018
fabriziopandini
fabriziopandini approved these changes Dec 7, 2018
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@fabriziopandini fabriziopandini left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@yuexiao-wang thanks for this quick fix!
Only one nit from my side
/approve

@luxas could you kindly give a final pass on this change?

cmd/kubeadm/app/phases/upgrade/staticpods.go
// Upgrading the Etcd protocol takes down the apiserver, so we can't verify component restarts if we restart Etcd independently.
// Skip waiting for Etcd to restart and immediately move on to updating the apiserver.
if component == constants.Etcd {
waitForComponentRestart = false
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If this piece of code goes away I think that the waitForComponentRestart var could go away too and the if statement below in the same func could be simplified throwing away the else branch

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: fabriziopandini, yuexiao-wang

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 the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Dec 7, 2018
@yuexiao-wang
Copy link
Contributor Author

/test pull-kubernetes-e2e-kops-aws

rosti
rosti reviewed Dec 7, 2018
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@rosti rosti left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @yuexiao-wang ! Looking good so far!

cmd/kubeadm/app/phases/upgrade/staticpods.go Outdated
@@ -366,7 +346,7 @@ func performEtcdStaticPodUpgrade(client clientset.Interface, waiter apiclient.Wa

// Checking health state of etcd after the upgrade
fmt.Println("[upgrade/etcd] Waiting for etcd to become available")
if _, err = newEtcdClient.WaitForClusterAvailable(podRestartDelay, retries, retryInterval); err != nil {
if _, err = newEtcdClient.WaitForClusterAvailable(noDelay, retries, retryInterval); err != nil {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We can also cleanup the delay parameter of WaitForClusterAvailable. It's only used for this case and is not meaningful otherwise, so we can safely reduce the clutter there too.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes，I agree

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Updated and thanks for reviewing

@yuexiao-wang
Copy link
Contributor Author

/test pull-kubernetes-e2e-kops-aws

@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 8, 2018
@yuexiao-wang
kubeadm: fixed cleanup upgrade from no-TLS etcd to TLS etcd
39f7124 
Signed-off-by: yuexiao-wang <wang.yuexiao@zte.com.cn>
luxas
luxas approved these changes Dec 8, 2018
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@luxas luxas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

/lgtm
/assign @luxas @fabriziopandini
Thanks!

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Dec 8, 2018
@luxas luxas mentioned this pull request Dec 8, 2018
Closed
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit c06c08e into kubernetes:master Dec 8, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@rosti rosti rosti left review comments

@fabriziopandini fabriziopandini fabriziopandini approved these changes

@luxas luxas luxas approved these changes

@chuckha chuckha Awaiting requested review from chuckha

Assignees

@fabriziopandini fabriziopandini

@luxas luxas

Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. area/kubeadm cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. kind/cleanup Categorizes issue or PR as related to cleaning up code, process, or technical debt. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. needs-priority Indicates a PR lacks a `priority/foo` label and requires one. ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. sig/cluster-lifecycle Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Cluster Lifecycle. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
5 participants
@yuexiao-wang @k8s-ci-robot @fabriziopandini @rosti @luxas