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

check ip family for node port connectivity test #88417

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Feb 22, 2020
Merged

check ip family for node port connectivity test #88417

merged 1 commit into from Feb 22, 2020

Conversation

aramase
Copy link
Member

@aramase aramase commented Feb 21, 2020

What type of PR is this?

/kind cleanup

What this PR does / why we need it:
The current testReachabilityOverNodePorts tests against all node InternalIPs. It's possible a single stack v4/v6 cluster is supported with dual stack hosts in which case the cloud providers would update the InternalIP with both. This PR checks the ip family of the clusterIP and checks node port connectivity on all InternalIP that belong to the same family.

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.:

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. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. 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 Feb 21, 2020
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added area/e2e-test-framework Issues or PRs related to refactoring the kubernetes e2e test framework area/test sig/testing Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Testing. and removed needs-sig Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `sig/foo` label and requires one. labels Feb 21, 2020
@aramase
Copy link
Member Author

aramase commented Feb 21, 2020

/assign @neolit123

@aramase
Copy link
Member Author

aramase commented Feb 21, 2020

/test pull-kubernetes-e2e-kind

1 similar comment
@aramase
Copy link
Member Author

aramase commented Feb 21, 2020

/test pull-kubernetes-e2e-kind

@ixdy
Copy link
Member

ixdy commented Feb 21, 2020

/uncc

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the request for review from ixdy February 21, 2020 18:44
@neolit123
Copy link
Member

@aramase
thanks for the fix.
please ping someone from #sig-network for review on the logic in this change.
i can approve if they are happy about it.

@aramase
Copy link
Member Author

aramase commented Feb 21, 2020

/cc @aojea

aojea
aojea reviewed Feb 21, 2020
View reviewed changes
test/e2e/framework/service/jig.go
@@ -879,7 +890,7 @@ func (j *TestJig) checkNodePortServiceReachability(svc *v1.Service, pod *v1.Pod)
if err != nil {
return err
}
err = testReachabilityOverNodePorts(nodes, servicePort, pod)
err = testReachabilityOverNodePorts(nodes, servicePort, pod, clusterIP)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

just food for thought, should we pass the clusterIP or a isIPv6 bool?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

we can do that, but just figured the testReachabilityOverNodePorts should make the decision on what it checks and has to do with the clusterIP. WDYT?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

it seems correct one or the other, I don't have a strong opinion about this, this looks ok

@aojea
Copy link
Member

aojea commented Feb 21, 2020

/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Feb 21, 2020
@aramase
Copy link
Member Author

aramase commented Feb 21, 2020

/test pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce

@neolit123
Copy link
Member

/approve

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: aramase, 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:

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 Feb 21, 2020
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit 9a8e869 into kubernetes:master Feb 22, 2020
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added this to the v1.18 milestone Feb 22, 2020
@aramase aramase deleted the conformance-nodeport branch February 22, 2020 06:42
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@neolit123 neolit123 neolit123 left review comments

@aojea aojea aojea left review comments

@alejandrox1 alejandrox1 Awaiting requested review from alejandrox1

Assignees

@neolit123 neolit123

@aojea aojea

Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. area/e2e-test-framework Issues or PRs related to refactoring the kubernetes e2e test framework area/test 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. release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. sig/testing Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Testing. size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
v1.18
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
5 participants
@aramase @ixdy @neolit123 @aojea @k8s-ci-robot