Add Windows support to the system verification check #53730

bsteciuk · 2017-10-11T15:34:25Z

What this PR does / why we need it: This PR (in conjunction with #53553 ) adds initial support for adding a Windows worker node to a Kubernetes cluster using
kubeadm. It was suggested on that PR to open a separate PR for the changes in test/e2e_node for review by sig-node devs.

Which issue this PR fixes (optional, in fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close that issue when PR gets merged): fixes #364 in conjuction with #53553

Special notes for your reviewer:

Release note:

Add Windows support to the system verification check

k8s-ci-robot · 2017-10-11T15:34:28Z

@bsteciuk: Adding do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed because the release note process has not been followed.

One of the following labels is required "release-note", "release-note-action-required", or "release-note-none".
Please see: https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/pull-requests.md#write-release-notes-if-needed.

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.

k8s-ci-robot · 2017-10-11T15:34:34Z

Hi @bsteciuk. 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.

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. I understand the commands that are listed here.

luxas · 2017-10-11T17:02:01Z

PTAL @kubernetes/sig-node-pr-reviews
/assign @Random-Liu @yujuhong

luxas · 2017-10-11T17:03:26Z

/release-note
/ok-to-test

k8s-ci-robot · 2017-10-11T17:03:27Z

@luxas: the /release-note and /release-note-action-required commands have been deprecated.
Please edit the release-note block in the PR body text to include the release note. If the release note requires additional action include the string action required in the release note. For example:

```release-note
Some release note with action required.
```

In response to this:

/release-note
/ok-to-test

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.

Random-Liu · 2017-10-11T18:25:07Z

@luxas @bsteciuk We'll build different binaries for windows and linux, right? I don't think in windows binary, we need the linux sys spec, and vise verse. Why don't we use build tag instead of using a table?

luxas · 2017-10-11T19:20:41Z

@Random-Liu Yeah, a build tag is even better. Let's do that instead, thanks ;-)

bsteciuk · 2017-10-11T19:24:43Z

@luxas @Random-Liu - 👍 on it

mtaufen · 2017-10-11T21:28:51Z

test/e2e_node/system/kernel_validator_helper.go

+}
+
+// DefaultKernelValidatorHelper is the 'linux' implementation of KernelValidatorHelper
+type DefaultKernelValidatorHelper struct {


nit: prefer empty struct on one line

mtaufen · 2017-10-11T21:29:11Z

test/e2e_node/system/kernel_validator_helper.go

+}
+
+// WindowsKernelValidatorHelper is the 'windows' implementation of KernelValidatorHelper
+type WindowsKernelValidatorHelper struct {


nit: prefer empty struct on one line

…bernetes#53730

bsteciuk · 2017-10-12T01:45:59Z

/retest

luxas

Thanks @bsteciuk
After these changes, this PR LGTM

luxas · 2017-10-12T19:38:05Z

test/e2e_node/system/kernel_validator_helper.go

+
+func (o *WindowsKernelValidatorHelper) GetKernelRelease() ([]byte, error) {
+	args := []string{"(Get-CimInstance Win32_OperatingSystem).Version"}
+	kernel, err := exec.Command("powershell", args...).Output()


nit, you can just write return exec.Command("powershell", args...).Output() here directly

luxas · 2017-10-12T19:39:23Z

test/e2e_node/system/kernel_validator_helper.go

+}
+
+// DefaultKernelValidatorHelper is the 'linux' implementation of KernelValidatorHelper
+type DefaultKernelValidatorHelper struct{}


I would call this LinuxKernelValidatorHelper

luxas · 2017-10-12T19:39:29Z

test/e2e_node/system/kernel_validator_helper.go

+// DefaultKernelValidatorHelper is the 'linux' implementation of KernelValidatorHelper
+type DefaultKernelValidatorHelper struct{}
+
+func (o *DefaultKernelValidatorHelper) GetKernelRelease() ([]byte, error) {


luxas · 2017-10-12T19:39:44Z

test/e2e_node/system/kernel_validator_helper.go

+type DefaultKernelValidatorHelper struct{}
+
+func (o *DefaultKernelValidatorHelper) GetKernelRelease() ([]byte, error) {
+	kernel, err := exec.Command("uname", "-r").CombinedOutput()


return this directly

luxas · 2017-10-12T19:39:49Z

test/e2e_node/system/kernel_validator_helper.go

+// WindowsKernelValidatorHelper is the 'windows' implementation of KernelValidatorHelper
+type WindowsKernelValidatorHelper struct{}
+
+func (o *WindowsKernelValidatorHelper) GetKernelRelease() ([]byte, error) {


luxas · 2017-10-12T19:40:02Z

test/e2e_node/system/types_windows.go

+
+package system
+
+// GetSysSpec returns os specific SysSpec


// DefaultSysSpec...

luxas · 2017-10-12T19:40:19Z

test/e2e_node/system/types_unix.go

+
+package system
+
+// DefaultSysSpec is the default SysSpec.


... for Linux

luxas

/lgtm

bsteciuk · 2017-10-17T17:38:53Z

/retest

bsteciuk · 2017-10-17T20:34:52Z

/assign @Random-Liu

kad · 2017-10-18T12:47:38Z

test/e2e_node/system/types_windows.go

+var DefaultSysSpec = SysSpec{
+	OS: "Microsoft Windows Server 2016",
+	KernelSpec: KernelSpec{
+		Versions:  []string{`10\.[0-9]\.1439[3-9]*`, `10\.[0-9]\.144[0-9]*`, `10\.[0-9]\.15[0-9]*`, `10\.[0-9]\.2[0-9]*`}, //requires >= '10.0.14393'


10\.[0-9]\.1439[3-9]* will match also 10.2.1439.

10\.[0-9]\.144[0-9]* will match 10.0.144 which is lower than '10.0.14393'

10\.[0-9]\.15[0-9]*, same here. will match 10.0.15, which is lower than '10.0.14393'

10\.[0-9]\.2[0-9]*, will match 10.0.200, , which is lower than '10.0.14393'

Something that you probably want to have here is:

Versions: []string{`10\.0\.1439[3-9]`, `10\.0\.14[4-9][0-9]{2}`, `10\.0\.1[5-9][0-9]{3}`, `10\.0\.[2-9][0-9]{4}`,`10\.[1-9]+\.[0-9]+}, //requires >= '10.0.14393'

That would match ranges:

10.0.14393 -- 10.0.14399

10.0.14400 -- 10.0.14999

10.0.15000 -- 10.0.19999

10.0.20000 -- 10.0.99999

10.1.0+

good catch!

bsteciuk · 2017-10-24T18:23:08Z

@Random-Liu PTAL

luxas · 2017-10-24T18:23:16Z

@brendandburns Please take a look at this one and approve.
The system verification check parts of #53553 were broken out into this PR; which is now ready for review and merge.

yujuhong · 2017-10-25T17:30:27Z

test/e2e_node/system/types_unix.go

+import "os/exec"
+
+// DockerEndpoint is the os specific endpoint for docker communication
+const DockerEndpoint = "unix:///var/run/docker.sock"


Why exporting the variable?

yup, export was not necessary

yujuhong · 2017-10-25T17:34:51Z

test/e2e_node/system/kernel_validator_helper.go

+// KernelValidatorHelper is an interface intended to help with os specific kernel validation
+type KernelValidatorHelper interface {
+	// GetKernelRelease gets the current kernel release version of the system
+	GetKernelRelease() ([]byte, error)


GetKernelVersion or GetKernelReleaseVersion is more precise.

Also, I think the function should just return a string. Any trimming and byte array conversation should be done in the function.

bsteciuk · 2017-10-25T20:35:11Z

/retest

yujuhong · 2017-10-25T20:43:05Z

Didn't review the Windows spec closely, but the rest LGTM

bsteciuk · 2017-10-25T22:32:43Z

/retest

kad · 2017-10-25T22:46:54Z

please don't forget to squash commits.

Pulled SysSpecs out of types.go and created two os specific implementations with build tags Similarly created conditionally compiled implementations of KernelValidationHelper to get Kernel version in os specific manner, as well as os specific docker endpoints (socket vs named pipes)

bsteciuk · 2017-10-26T00:21:33Z

squashed

luxas · 2017-10-26T15:13:58Z

@brendanburns @yujuhong This ok to approve now?

brendandburns · 2017-10-26T23:20:05Z

/lgtm
/approve

k8s-github-robot · 2017-10-26T23:20:43Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: brendandburns, bsteciuk, luxas

Associated issue: 364

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these OWNERS Files:

~~test/e2e_node/OWNERS~~ [brendandburns]

You can indicate your approval by writing /approve in a comment
You can cancel your approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

k8s-ci-robot · 2017-10-27T00:50:58Z

@bsteciuk: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun them all:

Test name	Commit	Details	Rerun command
pull-kubernetes-e2e-kubeadm-gce	fc40bf6b96eadce29d2a021fd129e628edcc1e74	link	`/test pull-kubernetes-e2e-kubeadm-gce`

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.

bsteciuk · 2017-10-27T00:54:32Z

/retest

k8s-github-robot · 2017-10-27T01:39:57Z

/test all [submit-queue is verifying that this PR is safe to merge]

k8s-github-robot · 2017-10-27T02:23:01Z

Automatic merge from submit-queue. If you want to cherry-pick this change to another branch, please follow the instructions here.

Automatic merge from submit-queue. If you want to cherry-pick this change to another branch, please follow the instructions <a href="https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/cherry-picks.md">here</a>. Kubeadm - Added initial support for Windows worker nodes to join cluster using kubeadm **What this PR does / why we need it**: This PR adds initial support for adding a Windows worker node to a Kubernetes cluster with kubeadm. Also adds Windows build of kubeadm to node build targets. **Which issue this PR fixes** *(optional, in `fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)` format, will close that issue when PR gets merged)*: fixes kubernetes/kubeadm#364 **Special notes for your reviewer**: Depends on kubernetes#53730 **Release note**: ```release-note kubeadm: Add support for adding a Windows node ```

k8s-ci-robot added 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/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Oct 11, 2017

k8s-ci-robot added the needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. label Oct 11, 2017

k8s-github-robot assigned resouer and mtaufen Oct 11, 2017

bsteciuk mentioned this pull request Oct 11, 2017

Kubeadm - Added initial support for Windows worker nodes to join cluster using kubeadm #53553

Merged

k8s-ci-robot assigned Random-Liu and yujuhong Oct 11, 2017

k8s-ci-robot added the sig/node Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Node. label Oct 11, 2017

luxas changed the title ~~Added changes for initial support for Windows worker nodes to join cl…~~ Add Windows support to the system verification check Oct 11, 2017

k8s-ci-robot added release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. 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 Oct 11, 2017

luxas added do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed Indicates that a PR should not merge because it's missing one of the release note labels. and removed release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. labels Oct 11, 2017

k8s-ci-robot removed the needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. label Oct 11, 2017

k8s-ci-robot added 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. and removed size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Oct 11, 2017

mtaufen reviewed Oct 11, 2017

View reviewed changes

bsteciuk added a commit to bsteciuk/kubernetes that referenced this pull request Oct 11, 2017

Added NormalizePath func, and consumed the SysSpec changes from PR ku…

f8622ff

…bernetes#53730

luxas reviewed Oct 12, 2017

View reviewed changes

k8s-github-robot removed the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 17, 2017

luxas approved these changes Oct 17, 2017

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 17, 2017

kad reviewed Oct 18, 2017

View reviewed changes

bsteciuk force-pushed the kubeadm-windows-e2e_node branch from b8a4ed9 to 38507b3 Compare October 18, 2017 14:04

k8s-github-robot removed the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 18, 2017

luxas assigned brendandburns Oct 24, 2017

yujuhong reviewed Oct 25, 2017

View reviewed changes

bsteciuk force-pushed the kubeadm-windows-e2e_node branch from 8c7bd27 to 94db64f Compare October 25, 2017 22:58

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 26, 2017

k8s-github-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Oct 26, 2017

k8s-github-robot merged commit 931bc9e into kubernetes:master Oct 27, 2017

Add Windows support to the system verification check #53730

Add Windows support to the system verification check #53730

Conversation

bsteciuk commented Oct 11, 2017 • edited by luxas Loading

k8s-ci-robot commented Oct 11, 2017

k8s-ci-robot commented Oct 11, 2017

luxas commented Oct 11, 2017

luxas commented Oct 11, 2017

k8s-ci-robot commented Oct 11, 2017

Random-Liu commented Oct 11, 2017

luxas commented Oct 11, 2017

bsteciuk commented Oct 11, 2017

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

bsteciuk commented Oct 12, 2017

luxas 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

luxas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bsteciuk commented Oct 17, 2017

bsteciuk commented Oct 17, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bsteciuk commented Oct 24, 2017

luxas commented Oct 24, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bsteciuk commented Oct 25, 2017

yujuhong commented Oct 25, 2017

bsteciuk commented Oct 25, 2017

kad commented Oct 25, 2017

bsteciuk commented Oct 26, 2017

luxas commented Oct 26, 2017

brendandburns commented Oct 26, 2017

k8s-github-robot commented Oct 26, 2017

k8s-ci-robot commented Oct 27, 2017 • edited Loading

bsteciuk commented Oct 27, 2017

k8s-github-robot commented Oct 27, 2017

k8s-github-robot commented Oct 27, 2017

bsteciuk commented Oct 11, 2017 •

edited by luxas

Loading

k8s-ci-robot commented Oct 27, 2017 •

edited

Loading