Fix leader election lock release when using LeaseLocks

[zachomedia]

What type of PR is this?
/kind bug

What this PR does / why we need it:

Resolves lock release issues with leader election when using LeaseLocks when ReleaseOnCancel is set to true (like in the example https://github.com/kubernetes/client-go/blob/master/examples/leader-election/main.go):

Failed to release lock: Lease.coordination.k8s.io "example" is invalid: spec.leaseDurationSeconds: Invalid value: 0: must be greater than 0

This PR updates the LeaderElectionRecord generated in the release function to:

1. Set the LeaseDurationSeconds to 1 so that it's valid with LeaseLocks
2. Fill in RenewTime and AcquireTime since it panics without that information

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]

Welcome @zachomedia!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes/kubernetes 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes/kubernetes has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @zachomedia. 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.

[yue9944882]

/cc @mikedanese
/ok-to-test

[zachomedia]

Is it possible to get an update on this pull request?

cc @resouer @mikedanese @deads2k

[fejta-bot]

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or fejta.
/lifecycle stale

[zachomedia]

/remove-lifecycle stale

cc @resouer @mikedanese @deads2k

[fejta-bot]

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or fejta.
/lifecycle stale

[zachomedia]

/remove-lifecycle stale

[zachomedia]

@resouer @mikedanese @deads2k Is there any possibility at getting this PR looked at? While it seems minor, I did spend the time to find the issue and a fix for it. It would be great to receive some feedback (it may not be the right way to fix this) and/or have it merged into the actual code base (if it's a reasonable fix), especially since it's been open for over 8 months now.

[mikedanese]

Hi @zachomedia, thanks for the fix. Can you please add a test to demonstrate the issue and so that we don't regress when we fix it?

[liggitt]

/hold

#88192 is touching the same place but handles the leader release differently. @smarterclayton which should we proceed with?

[mikedanese]

@liggitt the two changes are functionally equivalent, so it's just a matter of what information we want to convey to the user until the next leader picks up. I like that this has a test.

[ChrsMark]

Hey folks! Would be nice to have it in soon since it's has been around for some time now and it seems that it's just lacks the final ok to go. @liggitt @mikedanese is there anything blocking this?

[liggitt]

/test all
/hold cancel

+1 for the test

[zachomedia]

/retest

[zachomedia]

@liggitt I'm not sure what to do about the tests, it seems to be a different one that fails every time. I think a run of that test passed based on https://prow.k8s.io/pr-history/?org=kubernetes&repo=kubernetes&pr=80954 though?

[fejta-bot]

/retest
This bot automatically retries jobs that failed/flaked on approved PRs (send feedback to fejta).

Review the full test history for this PR.

Silence the bot with an /lgtm cancel or /hold comment for consistent failures.

[fejta-bot]

/retest
This bot automatically retries jobs that failed/flaked on approved PRs (send feedback to fejta).

Review the full test history for this PR.

Silence the bot with an /lgtm cancel or /hold comment for consistent failures.

[dprotaso]

Is this PR eligible to cherry pick back through v1.18.x?

[liggitt]

yes

[dprotaso]

Done!