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.

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

e2e: allow unknown providers with a warning #70141

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Oct 25, 2018

Conversation

@pohly
Contributor

pohly commented Oct 23, 2018

What type of PR is this?
/kind bug

What this PR does / why we need it:

#68483 unintentionally broke several use cases by tightening the validation of the --provider parameter such that the e2e.test binary only accepts known providers.

Whether that really is the right behavior needs more discussion (and in hindsight it probably isn't). In the meantime we need to restore the previous behavior quickly to get all CI jobs working again.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):
Refs #70058

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

- Support for passing unknown provider names to the E2E test binaries is going to be deprecated. Use `--provider=skeleton` (no ssh access) or `--provider=local` (local cluster with ssh) instead.

/sig testing
/cc @BenTheElder
/cc @neolit123

@neolit123

LGTM thanks.
maybe @timothysc has historic knowledge of why we allowed unknown providers pre-refactor.
/assign @timothysc

@neolit123

This comment has been minimized.

Member

neolit123 commented Oct 23, 2018

x reference this PR which is on hold with the alternative solution:
kubernetes/test-infra#9897

this tackles the problem in kubetest.

if this current PR is merged we need to cancel the above PR..
also we need to revert this test-infra PR:
kubernetes/test-infra#9884

/this-is-fine

@k8s-ci-robot

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

k8s-ci-robot commented Oct 23, 2018

@neolit123: dog image

In response to this:

x reference this PR which is on hold with the alternative solution:
kubernetes/test-infra#9897

this tackles the problem in kubetest.

if this current PR is merged we need to cancel the above PR..
also we need to revert this test-infra PR:
kubernetes/test-infra#9884

/this-is-fine

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.

@timothysc

This comment has been minimized.

Member

timothysc commented Oct 24, 2018

So your change exposed s bunch of brittleness in the tests, this is kind of a band-aide, but do we still need it? Are the other tests fixed?

/hold

@pohly

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

pohly commented Oct 24, 2018

@timothysc At the moment this band-aid is still needed. I prefer to have it in 1.13 with a deprecation announcement, then in 1.14 remove it (and enhance the error handling - Failf produces rather ugly output). I have updated this PR's release note accordingly, in case that it gets merged.

@timothysc

This comment has been minimized.

Member

timothysc commented Oct 24, 2018

@pohly please log an issue and add a // TODO comment to the top of the conversion referencing the issue(s), and I'll get this unblocked.

@BenTheElder

This comment has been minimized.

Member

BenTheElder commented Oct 24, 2018

Discussed at the kubeadm office hours, one upshot to this is that removing providers from core should be slightly easier since they just get promoted to no-op with a warning.

We're also fixing tests to avoid this warning.

e2e: allow unknown providers with a warning
The E2E refactoring tightened the sanity checking of the --provider
parameter such that it only allowed known providers. That seemed to
make sense because it catches typos, but it turned out that various
callers depended on the "accept arbitrary provider value" behavior,
therefore it gets restored.
@pohly

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

pohly commented Oct 24, 2018

@timothysc I've file an issue and added a TODO in the code - I hope I understood correctly where you wanted that.

@timothysc

/approve
/hold cancel

@BenTheElder for LGTM b/c he knows the deets of how it's currently failing.

@k8s-ci-robot

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

k8s-ci-robot commented Oct 24, 2018

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: pohly, timothysc

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 /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@BenTheElder

/lgtm
thanks!

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm label Oct 24, 2018

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit 432e8d4 into kubernetes:master Oct 25, 2018

18 checks passed

cla/linuxfoundation pohly authorized
Details
pull-kubernetes-bazel-build Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-bazel-test Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-cross Skipped
pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-100-performance Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-device-plugin-gpu Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-e2e-gke Skipped
pull-kubernetes-e2e-kops-aws Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-e2e-kubeadm-gce Skipped
pull-kubernetes-integration Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-kubemark-e2e-gce-big Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-local-e2e Skipped
pull-kubernetes-local-e2e-containerized Skipped
pull-kubernetes-node-e2e Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-typecheck Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-verify Job succeeded.
Details
tide In merge pool.
Details
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment