Make sure pod tested for eviction with PDB is not scheduled for deletion #92991
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
k8s-ci-robot
added
kind/flake
|
/assign @smarterclayton |
|
/assign @liggitt |
|
/lgtm |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
k8s-ci-robot
removed
the
lgtm
In kubernetes#91342 attempting to evict a Pod with a DeletionTimestamp caused checking of PDBs to be ignored due to the fact that a Pod scheduled for deletion should not be factored into a disruption budget. However, PDB eviction tests currently will sometimes select a Pod already scheduled for deletion, expecting that attempting to evict it will conflict with the PDB. This updates those tests to make sure a Pod with deletion timestamp is not selected for eviction when it is intended to violate a PDB. Signed-off-by: hasheddan <georgedanielmangum@gmail.com>
|
/retest |
|
ah, the bot comment is stale, that was a different commit https://prow.k8s.io/pr-history/?org=kubernetes&repo=kubernetes&pr=92991 |
|
@BenTheElder yep :) accidentally had an extraneous |
|
/lgtm |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: BenTheElder, hasheddan 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 |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
approved
|
/milestone v1.19 |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
priority/critical-urgent
k8s-ci-robot
removed
the
needs-priority
tnozicka
reviewed
Jul 28, 2020
| @@ -491,7 +491,7 @@ func waitForPodsOrDie(cs kubernetes.Interface, ns string, n int) { | |||
| ready := 0 | |||
| for i := range pods.Items { | |||
| pod := pods.Items[i] | |||
| if podutil.IsPodReady(&pod) { | |||
| if podutil.IsPodReady(&pod) && pod.ObjectMeta.DeletionTimestamp.IsZero() { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
DeletionTimestamp is a pointer so this needs to be pod.ObjectMeta.DeletionTimestamp == nil
There was a problem hiding this comment.
sent a PR to fix it #93501
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What type of PR is this?
/kind flake
What this PR does / why we need it:
In #91342 attempting to evict a Pod with a DeletionTimestamp caused
checking of PDBs to be ignored due to the fact that a Pod scheduled for
deletion should not be factored into a disruption budget. However, PDB
eviction tests currently will sometimes select a Pod already scheduled
for deletion, expecting that attempting to evict it will conflict with
the PDB. This updates those tests to make sure a Pod with deletion
timestamp is not selected for eviction when it is intended to violate a
PDB.
Signed-off-by: hasheddan georgedanielmangum@gmail.com
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #92977
Special notes for your reviewer:
This flaky test currently affects a number of jobs including:
https://testgrid.k8s.io/sig-release-master-blocking#gce-cos-master-default
https://testgrid.k8s.io/sig-release-master-blocking#gce-ubuntu-master-containerd
https://testgrid.k8s.io/sig-release-master-blocking#kind-master-parallel
https://testgrid.k8s.io/sig-release-master-blocking#kind-ipv6-master-parallel
https://testgrid.k8s.io/sig-release-master-informing#gce-master-scale-correctness
https://testgrid.k8s.io/sig-release-master-informing#gce-ubuntu-master-default
See increase in failures since #91342 here: https://storage.googleapis.com/k8s-gubernator/triage/index.html?test=DisruptionController%20should%20block%20an%20eviction%20until%20the%20PDB%20is%20updated%20to%20allow%20it
/cc @liggitt @BenTheElder @hakman
/sig apps
/cc @kubernetes/ci-signal
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:
Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.: