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.

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

cloud/node-controller use InstanceMetadataByProviderID #91319

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Jul 12, 2020
Merged

cloud/node-controller use InstanceMetadataByProviderID #91319

merged 2 commits into from Jul 12, 2020

Conversation

gongguan
Copy link
Contributor

@gongguan gongguan commented May 21, 2020 •
edited

/kind feature

Ref #90652

Cloud node-controller use InstancesV2

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature. do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed Indicates that a PR should not merge because it's missing one of the release note labels. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 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 May 21, 2020
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added sig/cloud-provider Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Cloud Provider. and removed needs-sig Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `sig/foo` label and requires one. labels May 21, 2020
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. and removed do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed Indicates that a PR should not merge because it's missing one of the release note labels. labels May 21, 2020
@gongguan

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@gongguan
Copy link
Contributor Author

/assign @wojtek-t
/sig scalability

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the sig/scalability Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Scalability. label May 21, 2020
@gongguan
Copy link
Contributor Author

/assign @andrewsykim

@gongguan
Copy link
Contributor Author

/hold for SIG discussion.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label May 26, 2020
@andrewsykim andrewsykim mentioned this pull request May 26, 2020
Merged
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jun 10, 2020
@gongguan
Copy link
Contributor Author

We are not ready to replace InstanceTypeByProviderID, InstanceExistsByProviderID and NodeAddressesByProviderID by InstanceMetadataByProviderID, so I close this pr.

@gongguan gongguan closed this Jun 18, 2020
@wojtek-t
Copy link
Member

We are not ready to replace InstanceTypeByProviderID, InstanceExistsByProviderID and NodeAddressesByProviderID by InstanceMetadataByProviderID, so I close this pr.

Actually - we are ready. The approach is just slightly different.

You need to create a new "InstanceV2" interface (the implementations are already done) with a subset of methods and in the controller have switch: if the provider implements new interface then use new code-path, if it doesn't use the old codepath.

@wojtek-t wojtek-t reopened this Jun 18, 2020
@gongguan
Copy link
Contributor Author

gongguan commented Jun 18, 2020 •
edited

Actually - we are ready. The approach is just slightly different.

You need to create a new "InstanceV2" interface (the implementations are already done) with a subset of methods and in the controller have switch: if the provider implements new interface then use new code-path, if it doesn't use the old codepath.

I used to thought InstanceV2 is a long-term work so I closed it. Is InstanceV2 a different package to current Instance?

@andrewsykim
Copy link
Member

/milestone v1.19

(should have had the milestone from the start)

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added this to the v1.19 milestone Jul 9, 2020
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: andrewsykim, gongguan

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 Jul 9, 2020
@andrewsykim
Copy link
Member

/retest

1 similar comment
@andrewsykim
Copy link
Member

/retest

@fejta-bot
Copy link

/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.

@gongguan
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

@fejta-bot
Copy link

/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.

@andrewsykim
Copy link
Member

/priority important-soon
/retest

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added priority/important-soon Must be staffed and worked on either currently, or very soon, ideally in time for the next release. and removed needs-priority Indicates a PR lacks a `priority/foo` label and requires one. labels Jul 10, 2020
@gongguan
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

@fejta-bot
Copy link

/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.

@gongguan
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

@fejta-bot
Copy link

/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.

@gongguan
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

2 similar comments
@gongguan
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

@gongguan
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

@fejta-bot
Copy link

/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.

1 similar comment
@fejta-bot
Copy link

/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.

@gongguan
Copy link
Contributor Author

pod pending timeout
/test pull-kubernetes-integration

@fejta-bot
Copy link

/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.

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

k8s-ci-robot commented Jul 12, 2020 •
edited

@gongguan: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests:

Test name Commit Details Rerun command
pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-storage-snapshot d89c13a8cd3a2b3344aab03c71f6c8e2589acbe5 link /test pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-storage-snapshot

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.

@gongguan
Copy link
Contributor Author

/test pull-kubernetes-integration

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit 68e4c1e into kubernetes:master Jul 12, 2020
@gongguan gongguan deleted the instance-meta branch July 12, 2020 14:05
@nilo19 nilo19 mentioned this pull request Jul 14, 2020
Closed
@wojtek-t
Copy link
Member

Nice - I'm really glad to see it happened (nice finding after 2.5 weeks of vacation). I didn't expect this happening in 1.19 timeframe.

@gongguan
Copy link
Contributor Author

It doesn't change current cloud-node-controller except for last commit(which removed instance existence check). I'm glad to see that nothing abnormal happened during these weeks.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@cheftako cheftako cheftako left review comments

@wojtek-t wojtek-t wojtek-t left review comments

@andrewsykim andrewsykim andrewsykim left review comments

@thockin thockin Awaiting requested review from thockin

@wlan0 wlan0 Awaiting requested review from wlan0

Assignees

@wojtek-t wojtek-t

@andrewsykim andrewsykim

Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. area/cloudprovider cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. priority/important-soon Must be staffed and worked on either currently, or very soon, ideally in time for the next release. release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. sig/apps Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Apps. sig/cloud-provider Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Cloud Provider. sig/scalability Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Scalability. sig/storage Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Storage. size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
v1.19
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
7 participants
@gongguan @wojtek-t @andrewsykim @feiskyer @cheftako @k8s-ci-robot @fejta-bot