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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Add validation for percentage-of-nodes-to-score of the scheduler config #69355

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 5, 2018
Merged

Add validation for percentage-of-nodes-to-score of the scheduler config #69355

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 4 additions & 0 deletions pkg/scheduler/apis/config/validation/validation.go
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -44,6 +44,10 @@ func ValidateKubeSchedulerConfiguration(cc *config.KubeSchedulerConfiguration) f
if cc.BindTimeoutSeconds == nil {
allErrs = append(allErrs, field.Required(field.NewPath("bindTimeoutSeconds"), ""))
}
if cc.PercentageOfNodesToScore < 0 || cc.PercentageOfNodesToScore > 100 {
allErrs = append(allErrs, field.Invalid(field.NewPath("percentageOfNodesToScore"),
cc.PercentageOfNodesToScore, "not in valid range 0-100"))
}
return allErrs
}

Expand Down
10 changes: 9 additions & 1 deletion pkg/scheduler/apis/config/validation/validation_test.go
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -58,7 +58,8 @@ func TestValidateKubeSchedulerConfiguration(t *testing.T) {
RetryPeriod: metav1.Duration{Duration: 5 * time.Second},
},
},
BindTimeoutSeconds: &testTimeout,
BindTimeoutSeconds: &testTimeout,
PercentageOfNodesToScore: 35,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Curious about 35. Was it chosen randomly :P ?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes. Just a valid number (between 0 and 100) to test our validation.

}

HardPodAffinitySymmetricWeightGt100 := validConfig.DeepCopy()
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -92,6 +93,9 @@ func TestValidateKubeSchedulerConfiguration(t *testing.T) {
bindTimeoutUnset := validConfig.DeepCopy()
bindTimeoutUnset.BindTimeoutSeconds = nil

percentageOfNodesToScore101 := validConfig.DeepCopy()
percentageOfNodesToScore101.PercentageOfNodesToScore = int32(101)

scenarios := map[string]struct {
expectedToFail bool
config *config.KubeSchedulerConfiguration
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -136,6 +140,10 @@ func TestValidateKubeSchedulerConfiguration(t *testing.T) {
expectedToFail: true,
config: bindTimeoutUnset,
},
"bad-percentage-of-nodes-to-score": {
expectedToFail: true,
config: percentageOfNodesToScore101,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Probably a positive test case as well?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The positive test case exists. It is labeled as "good" in the switch statement. The number 35 that I have added above is for the valid case.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ohh sorry github UI wasn't showing as it wasn't a new change, so did not notice. Thanks.

},
}

for name, scenario := range scenarios {
Expand Down