kubeadm: fix bug of kubeletconfig not being downloaded on upgrade #124480
+5
−11
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
During upgrade apply we had logic to download the kubelet and kubeproxy configs from the cluster as part of the call to: FetchInitConfigurationFromCluster() With the introduction of UpgradeConfiguration there was some refactor in this area and the function no longer had the argument skipComponentConfigs set to false. It is set to 'true', an InitConfiguration is downloaded but it would contain empty / defaulted component configs. - Set the argument to 'false' - Perform minor cleanup of STDOUT messages and comments. that were missed in 1.30.
k8s-ci-robot
added
release-note
|
/kind bug |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: 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 |
k8s-ci-robot
added
kind/regression
k8s-ci-robot
added
area/kubeadm
sig/cluster-lifecycle
neolit123
commented
Apr 23, 2024
| @@ -53,17 +53,14 @@ import ( | |||
|
|
|||
| // enforceRequirements verifies that it's okay to upgrade and then returns the variables needed for the rest of the procedure | |||
| func enforceRequirements(flagSet *pflag.FlagSet, flags *applyPlanFlags, args []string, dryRun bool, upgradeApply bool, printer output.Printer) (clientset.Interface, upgrade.VersionGetter, *kubeadmapi.InitConfiguration, *kubeadmapi.UpgradeConfiguration, error) { | |||
| // Fetch the configuration from a file or ConfigMap and validate it | |||
| _, _ = printer.Printf("[upgrade/config] Making sure the configuration is correct:\n") | |||
|
|
|||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this message is just confusing on the CLI output.
the config is loaded or defaulted, so there is no need for the message i think.
| externalCfg := &v1beta4.UpgradeConfiguration{} | ||
| opt := configutil.LoadOrDefaultConfigurationOptions{} | ||
| upgradeCfg, err := configutil.LoadOrDefaultUpgradeConfiguration(flags.cfgPath, externalCfg, opt) | ||
| if err != nil { | ||
| return nil, nil, nil, nil, errors.Wrap(err, "[upgrade/upgrade config] FATAL") | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // `dryRun` should be always `false` for `kubeadm plan`. | ||
| // `dryRun` should be always be `false` for `kubeadm plan`. |
Comment on lines
+102
to
+104
| _, _ = printer.Printf("[upgrade/config] In order to upgrade, a ConfigMap called %q in the %q namespace must exist.\n", constants.KubeadmConfigConfigMap, metav1.NamespaceSystem) | ||
| _, _ = printer.Printf("[upgrade/config] Use 'kubeadm init phase upload-config --config your-config.yaml' to re-upload it.\n") | ||
| err = errors.Errorf("the ConfigMap %q in the %q namespace was not found", constants.KubeadmConfigConfigMap, metav1.NamespaceSystem) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the old message is just incorrect. there is no longer a command "kubeadm config"
| @@ -99,15 +96,12 @@ func enforceRequirements(flagSet *pflag.FlagSet, flags *applyPlanFlags, args []s | |||
| return nil, nil, nil, nil, err | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| initCfg, err := configutil.FetchInitConfigurationFromCluster(client, printer, "upgrade/config", false, true) | |||
| initCfg, err := configutil.FetchInitConfigurationFromCluster(client, printer, "upgrade/config", false, false) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we change the behavior introduced by #91980?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry, test did not cover this scenario.
Only if skipComponentConfigs is set to false, the componentConfig of kubelet and kubeproxy can be returned.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we change the behavior introduced by #91980?
this was already removed as a feature since its not possible to supply them with --config
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry, test did not cover this scenario. Only if skipComponentConfigs is set to false, the componentConfig of kubelet and kubeproxy can be returned.
yeah, it needs refractor for proper unit tests.
|
/retest |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
|
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: a7be0fb1d93f3096132814753ebd9a79611622eb
|
k8s-ci-robot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 10, 2024
…24480-origin-release-1.30 Automated cherry pick of #124480: kubeadm: fix bug of kubeletconfig not being downloaded on
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?
What this PR does / why we need it:
During upgrade apply we had logic to download the kubelet and kubeproxy configs from the cluster as part of the call to:
FetchInitConfigurationFromCluster()
With the introduction of UpgradeConfiguration there was some refactor in this area and the function no longer had the argument skipComponentConfigs set to false.
It is set to 'true', an InitConfiguration is downloaded but it would contain empty / defaulted component configs.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
xref kubernetes/kubeadm#3049
Special notes for your reviewer:
PROPOSING to include the comment / STDOUT changes in the backport to 1.30.
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?
Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.: