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.

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

Use default skuname shared Azure Disk #80837

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Aug 6, 2019

Conversation

@rmweir
Copy link
Contributor

commented Aug 1, 2019

What type of PR is this?

/kind bug

What this PR does / why we need it:
The create blob disk is not being passed the normalized value for storageaccounttype. The normalization was removed because at the time the Go sdk being used did not support Ultra SSD. Now it does so normalization will not fail on Ultra SSD. Without normalizing the value an empty string can be passed which will cause storage account creation to fail.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes # #80836

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

    Azure disks of shared kind will no longer fail if they do not contain skuname or 
    storageaccounttype.

Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.:


Use default skuname shared Azure Disk
Shared blob disks are now created with default skuname value if the
referenced storage class possesses empty values for storageaccounttype
and skuname. Prior, the provisioning process would fail if a new
storage account needed to be created. This is because a storage account
may not be created with an empty sotrageaccounttype.
@k8s-ci-robot

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Aug 1, 2019

Welcome @rmweir!

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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Aug 1, 2019

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.


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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Aug 1, 2019

Hi @rmweir. 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.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added sig/storage and removed needs-sig labels Aug 1, 2019

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot requested review from rootfs and saad-ali Aug 1, 2019

@rmweir

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Aug 1, 2019

/assign @brendandburns

@rmweir

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Aug 5, 2019

/assign @andyzhangx

@andyzhangx

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Aug 6, 2019

/ok-to-test
/kind bug
/priority important-soon
/sig azure

@andyzhangx

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Aug 6, 2019

@rmweir thanks for the fix. We are moving to use managed disk as default, new azure disk feature would be only supported for managed disk, so I would encourage to use managed disk. Is there any reason why you would still use blob based disk?

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the sig/azure label Aug 6, 2019

@rmweir

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Aug 6, 2019

flakey test mentioned here: #80528

@rmweir

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Aug 6, 2019

/retest

@rmweir

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Aug 6, 2019

@andyzhangx thank you for your reply! I do not personally use it. I am from rancherlabs and we noticed that after version 1.11 users would could experience an error during PVC creation when leaving storageaccounttype/skuName blank (rancher/rancher#20315). Currently, the default for these fields is blank, yet that value is invalid for PVC creation. We feel this interferes with UX. This could be especially confusing when referencing storage classes that were made prior to 1.12, since the input is not invalid yet and worked at one time.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm label Aug 6, 2019

@andyzhangx
Copy link
Member

left a comment

/lgtm
/approve

@k8s-ci-robot

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Aug 6, 2019

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: andyzhangx, rmweir

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

@rmweir

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Aug 6, 2019

/test pull-kubernetes-integration

@rmweir

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Aug 6, 2019

flakey TestVolumeProvision also mentioned in flakey test mentioned here: #80528

@fejta-bot

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 6, 2019

/retest
This bot automatically retries jobs that failed/flaked on approved PRs (send feedback to fejta).

Review the full test history for this PR.

Silence the bot with an /lgtm cancel or /hold comment for consistent failures.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit 16d9a65 into kubernetes:master Aug 6, 2019

23 checks passed

cla/linuxfoundation rmweir authorized
Details
pull-kubernetes-bazel-build Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-bazel-test Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-conformance-image-test Skipped.
pull-kubernetes-cross Skipped.
pull-kubernetes-dependencies Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-100-performance Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-csi-serial Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-device-plugin-gpu Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-iscsi Skipped.
pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-iscsi-serial Skipped.
pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-storage-slow Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-godeps Skipped.
pull-kubernetes-integration Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-kubemark-e2e-gce-big Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-local-e2e Skipped.
pull-kubernetes-node-e2e Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-node-e2e-containerd Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-typecheck Job succeeded.
Details
pull-kubernetes-verify Job succeeded.
Details
pull-publishing-bot-validate Skipped.
tide In merge pool.
Details

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added this to the v1.16 milestone Aug 6, 2019

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.