fix: mirroring of last-applied-configuration annotation in EndpointSlices #102731

sharmarajdaksh · 2021-06-09T13:39:17Z

What type of PR is this?

/kind bug

What this PR does / why we need it:

Fixes the Issue reported in #102684

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

Endpoint slices mirroring controller no longer mirrors the last-applied-configuration annotation created by kubectl to updated endpoint slices

k8s-ci-robot · 2021-06-09T13:39:20Z

Thanks for your pull request. Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

📝 Please follow instructions at https://git.k8s.io/community/CLA.md#the-contributor-license-agreement to sign the CLA.

It may take a couple minutes for the CLA signature to be fully registered; after that, please reply here with a new comment and we'll verify. Thanks.

If you've already signed a CLA, it's possible we don't have your GitHub username or you're using a different email address. Check your existing CLA data and verify that your email is set on your git commits.
If you signed the CLA as a corporation, please sign in with your organization's credentials at https://identity.linuxfoundation.org/projects/cncf to be authorized.
If you have done the above and are still having issues with the CLA being reported as unsigned, please log a ticket with the Linux Foundation Helpdesk: https://support.linuxfoundation.org/
Should you encounter any issues with the Linux Foundation Helpdesk, send a message to the backup e-mail support address at: login-issues@jira.linuxfoundation.org

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.

k8s-ci-robot · 2021-06-09T13:39:25Z

Welcome @sharmarajdaksh!

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 · 2021-06-09T13:39:25Z

Hi @sharmarajdaksh. 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.

aojea · 2021-06-11T16:40:39Z

/ok-to-test
@sharmarajdaksh if you don't ping us this goes unnoticed 😄
/assign @robscott @aojea

BenTheElder · 2021-06-11T16:42:07Z

@aojea perhaps time to update owners for endpointslice? https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/master/pkg/controller/endpointslice/OWNERS

sharmarajdaksh · 2021-06-11T16:44:30Z

@aojea I'm sorry I didn't know for sure where to ping/mention this PR!

robscott

Thanks for your work on this @sharmarajdaksh!

robscott · 2021-06-11T17:28:05Z

pkg/controller/endpointslicemirroring/reconciler_test.go

+			ObjectMeta: metav1.ObjectMeta{
+				Name: "test-ep-1",
+				Annotations: map[string]string{
+					corev1.LastAppliedConfigAnnotation: "{\"apiVersion\":\"v1\",\"kind\":\"Endpoints\",\"metadata\":{\"annotations\":{},\"name\":\"ep-test\",\"namespace\":\"default\"},\"subsets\":[{\"addresses\":[{\"ip\":\"193.99.144.80\"}],\"notReadyAddresses\":[{\"ip\":\"195.54.164.39\"}],\"ports\":[{\"name\":\"http\",\"port\":80,\"protocol\":\"TCP\"},{\"name\":\"https\",\"port\":443,\"protocol\":\"TCP\"}]}]}",


I'm not sure this is the primary issue you want to be testing here. If I'm understanding this correctly, it ensures that an EndpointSlice that has this annotation will have it removed after a mirroring sync has occurred. That's helpful for cleanup, but what I think we actually need to test is that an Endpoints resource with this annotation is not translated to a mirrored EndpointSlice resource.

so, let's test:

endpoint with corev1.LastAppliedConfigAnnotation: "_data_here" is notmirrored

endpoint with corev1.LastAppliedConfigAnnotation: empty is notmirrored

endpoint with 2 annotations: corev1.LastAppliedConfigAnnotation: "_data_here" and foo:bar only mirrors foo bar

Sounds good

robscott · 2021-06-11T17:30:32Z

pkg/controller/endpointslicemirroring/reconciler_test.go

@@ -837,6 +947,8 @@ func TestReconcile(t *testing.T) {
 				expectMetrics(t, *tc.expectedMetrics)
 			}

+			expectAnnotations(t, endpoints, tc.existingEndpointSlices)


This is not actually what you want here. You're comparing the two test inputs (Endpoints and EndpointSlices that exist before controller syncs), not the actual output (fetched below).

Actually, I think you could just expand expectEndpointSlices to always expect this annotation to be unset. This would be similar to how it always expects the service name label to be set: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/576457ac2508d2e06782805f9b3cb27dbbcf7324/pkg/controller/endpointslicemirroring/reconciler_test.go#L988-L991.

I see my mistake. Thank you for the pointers. I'll update my PR

@robscott
If i understand you correctly, all that should be needed at the line you specified inside reconciler_test.go is:

if epSlice.Annotations[corev1.LastAppliedConfigAnnotation] != "" { t.Errorf("Expected LastAppliedConfig Annotation to be unser, got %s", epSlice.Annotations[corev1.LastAppliedConfigAnnotation]) }

Yep, exactly something like that. We'd also need some way for a test case to actually set that annotation on the original Endpoints and EndpointSlice resources as well. You've already got the EndpointSlice use case covered, but it will be a bit more difficult to do the same for the Endpoints in the test case since we just have a subsets object instead of the full resource. Maybe just add a new endpointsAnnotations struct to the testCase struct?

Yes, a map[string]string should work for that, I believe?

Yep, that sounds ideal.

aojea · 2021-06-14T06:53:11Z

/lgtm
@sharmarajdaksh please add a release note. something like

endpointslices mirroring controller no longer mirrors the endpoint annotation created by kubectl with the "last-applied-configuration"

defer approval to RobScott

sharmarajdaksh · 2021-06-14T08:13:08Z

Added the release note

neolit123

/remove-sig cluster-lifecycle
/remove-area kubeadm

ehashman · 2021-06-14T17:43:33Z

/remove-sig node instrumentaton
/remove-area kubelet

k8s-ci-robot · 2021-06-14T17:43:35Z

@ehashman: Those labels are not set on the issue: sig/instrumentaton

In response to this:

/remove-sig node instrumentaton
/remove-area kubelet

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.

ehashman · 2021-06-14T17:43:51Z

/remove-sig instrumentation

robscott

Thanks for your work on this @sharmarajdaksh! Just a couple tiny nits, otherwise LGTM.

robscott · 2021-06-15T05:01:27Z

pkg/controller/endpointslicemirroring/reconciler_test.go

+	}, {
+		testName: "Annotation mirroring when LastAppliedConfigAnnotation is set",
+		epAnnotations: map[string]string{
+			corev1.LastAppliedConfigAnnotation: "{\"apiVersion\":\"v1\",\"kind\":\"Endpoints\",\"metadata\":{\"annotations\":{},\"name\":\"ep-test\",\"namespace\":\"default\"},\"subsets\":[{\"addresses\":[{\"ip\":\"193.99.144.80\"}],\"notReadyAddresses\":[{\"ip\":\"195.54.164.39\"}],\"ports\":[{\"name\":\"http\",\"port\":80,\"protocol\":\"TCP\"},{\"name\":\"https\",\"port\":443,\"protocol\":\"TCP\"}]}]}",


This is a tiny nit, but could this annotation be a bit shorter? I don't think it needs to be very long, and a shorter one would make editing this test slightly easier in the future.

robscott · 2021-06-15T05:01:44Z

pkg/controller/endpointslicemirroring/reconciler_test.go

+	}, {
+		testName: "Annotation mirroring when multiple annotations are set",
+		epAnnotations: map[string]string{
+			corev1.LastAppliedConfigAnnotation: "{\"apiVersion\":\"v1\",\"kind\":\"Endpoints\",\"metadata\":{\"annotations\":{},\"name\":\"ep-test\",\"namespace\":\"default\"},\"subsets\":[{\"addresses\":[{\"ip\":\"193.99.144.80\"}],\"notReadyAddresses\":[{\"ip\":\"195.54.164.39\"}],\"ports\":[{\"name\":\"http\",\"port\":80,\"protocol\":\"TCP\"},{\"name\":\"https\",\"port\":443,\"protocol\":\"TCP\"}]}]}",


Same comment about annotation length.

robscott · 2021-06-15T05:04:09Z

pkg/controller/endpointslicemirroring/reconciler_test.go

+				Hostname: "pod-1",
+			}},
+		}},
+		existingEndpointSlices: []*discovery.EndpointSlice{},


Can you add a test case to ensure that an existing slice with this annotation has it cleared out? I think you may have had that test case covered earlier in this PR.

sharmarajdaksh · 2021-06-15T06:08:56Z

Sure no problem, I'll sort the issues you mentioned

sharmarajdaksh · 2021-06-15T16:34:42Z

@robscott lmk if it looks good now!

robscott · 2021-06-15T16:48:06Z

pkg/controller/endpointslicemirroring/reconciler_test.go

+		expectedClientActions:  1,
+		expectedMetrics:        &expectedMetrics{addedPerSync: 1, numCreated: 1, desiredEndpoints: 1, desiredSlices: 1, actualSlices: 1},
+	}, {
+		testName: "Annotation mirroring and updation when the last-applied-configuration annotation is present on an existing endpoint slice",


Test name is confusing to me, maybe something like this:

Suggested change

testName: "Annotation mirroring and updation when the last-applied-configuration annotation is present on an existing endpoint slice",

testName: "Annotation mirroring should remove last-applied-configuration annotation from existing endpoint slice",

Hmm, actually now that you mention it I think the test names for all the tests I added could be better

Handles incorrect mirroring of endpoint annotations to created endpoint slices, specifically the last-applied-config. Also updates tests and adds test cases for the same

sharmarajdaksh · 2021-06-15T18:09:50Z

/retest

robscott · 2021-06-15T18:10:32Z

Thanks!

/lgtm
/approve

k8s-ci-robot · 2021-06-15T18:10:40Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: robscott, sharmarajdaksh

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:

~~pkg/controller/endpointslicemirroring/OWNERS~~ [robscott]

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 added release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Jun 9, 2021

k8s-ci-robot added cncf-cla: no Indicates the PR's author has not signed the CNCF CLA. do-not-merge/needs-sig Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `sig/foo` label and requires one. needs-triage Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `triage/foo` label and requires one. labels Jun 9, 2021

k8s-ci-robot added needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. needs-priority Indicates a PR lacks a `priority/foo` label and requires one. labels Jun 9, 2021

k8s-ci-robot requested review from andrewsykim and cmluciano June 9, 2021 13:39

k8s-ci-robot assigned aojea and robscott Jun 11, 2021

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 Jun 11, 2021

BenTheElder added the triage/accepted Indicates an issue or PR is ready to be actively worked on. label Jun 11, 2021

k8s-ci-robot removed the needs-triage Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `triage/foo` label and requires one. label Jun 11, 2021

BenTheElder removed the sig/apps Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Apps. label Jun 11, 2021

robscott reviewed Jun 11, 2021

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot removed the size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. label Jun 11, 2021

k8s-ci-robot added lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. and removed release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. labels Jun 14, 2021

neolit123 reviewed Jun 14, 2021

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot removed sig/cluster-lifecycle Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Cluster Lifecycle. area/kubeadm labels Jun 14, 2021

k8s-ci-robot removed sig/node Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Node. area/kubelet labels Jun 14, 2021

k8s-ci-robot removed the sig/instrumentation Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Instrumentation. label Jun 14, 2021

robscott reviewed Jun 15, 2021

View reviewed changes

sharmarajdaksh force-pushed the lastappliedconfig-annotation-no-mirror branch from b8b1767 to 3feb01a Compare June 15, 2021 15:48

k8s-ci-robot removed the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jun 15, 2021

sharmarajdaksh force-pushed the lastappliedconfig-annotation-no-mirror branch from 3feb01a to 4b4e435 Compare June 15, 2021 16:33

robscott reviewed Jun 15, 2021

View reviewed changes

last-applied-config annotation no longer mirrored to endpoint slices

211485c

Handles incorrect mirroring of endpoint annotations to created endpoint slices, specifically the last-applied-config. Also updates tests and adds test cases for the same

sharmarajdaksh force-pushed the lastappliedconfig-annotation-no-mirror branch from 4b4e435 to 211485c Compare June 15, 2021 17:02

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jun 15, 2021

k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Jun 15, 2021

k8s-ci-robot merged commit 81aaeee into kubernetes:master Jun 15, 2021

k8s-ci-robot added this to the v1.22 milestone Jun 15, 2021

	testName: "Annotation mirroring and updation when the last-applied-configuration annotation is present on an existing endpoint slice",
	testName: "Annotation mirroring should remove last-applied-configuration annotation from existing endpoint slice",

fix: mirroring of last-applied-configuration annotation in EndpointSlices #102731

fix: mirroring of last-applied-configuration annotation in EndpointSlices #102731

Conversation

sharmarajdaksh commented Jun 9, 2021 • edited Loading

What type of PR is this?

What this PR does / why we need it:

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

k8s-ci-robot commented Jun 9, 2021

k8s-ci-robot commented Jun 9, 2021

k8s-ci-robot commented Jun 9, 2021

aojea commented Jun 11, 2021

BenTheElder commented Jun 11, 2021

sharmarajdaksh commented Jun 11, 2021

robscott left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

aojea commented Jun 14, 2021

sharmarajdaksh commented Jun 14, 2021

neolit123 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ehashman commented Jun 14, 2021

k8s-ci-robot commented Jun 14, 2021

ehashman commented Jun 14, 2021

robscott left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

sharmarajdaksh commented Jun 15, 2021

sharmarajdaksh commented Jun 15, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

sharmarajdaksh commented Jun 15, 2021

robscott commented Jun 15, 2021

k8s-ci-robot commented Jun 15, 2021

sharmarajdaksh commented Jun 9, 2021 •

edited

Loading