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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Dualstack downward api #83123
Dualstack downward api #83123
Changes from all commits
af4d18c
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
nit: isn't
podIP
alwayspodIPs[0]
? We should not need both. Ok for followup.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@thockin correct, podIP is always podsIPs[0]. Will do a followup PR. Thank you for the review.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This seems scary, is there a reason we can't keep this as
len(podIP) > 0
? It ensures existing behavior and has the same result since primary pod IP is guaranteed to be set here anyways.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The
podIP
andpodIPs
are passed from callerSyncPod
. HerepodIP
is set explicitly to the first value ofpodIPs
- https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/master/pkg/kubelet/kuberuntime/kuberuntime_manager.go#L744-L747. SopodIPs
is guaranteed to be set right? IfpodIPs
is empty, thenpodIP
is going to be empty here.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is changing the meaning of the test. Before it was checking whether the podIP was valid (kind of - does it have any bytes). Now it is testing whether the list of podIPs has and values listed.
That is meaningfully different, though I think it will come out the same, since we should never set podIPs[0] if there is not a valid IP. I think. I checked the conversion code and it seems safe.