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

fix staticcheck failures: apiserver/pkg/{storage,util} #95683

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

fix staticcheck failures: apiserver/pkg/{storage,util} #95683

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

obeyda
Copy link
Contributor

@obeyda obeyda commented Oct 18, 2020 •
edited

What type of PR is this?

/kind cleanup

What this PR does / why we need it:

fix static check failures for these folders:

  • vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage
  • vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/cacher
  • vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/etcd3
  • vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/tests
  • vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/value/encrypt/envelope
  • vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/util/webhook
  • vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/util/wsstream

Errors reported by static check:

+++ Running case: verify.staticcheck 
+++ working dir: /home/obeyda/go/src/k8s.io/kubernetes
+++ command: bash "hack/make-rules/../../hack/verify-staticcheck.sh"
Errors from staticcheck:
vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/cacher/cacher_whitebox_test.go:656:2: the goroutine calls T.Fatalf, which must be called in the same goroutine as the test (SA2002)
vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/cacher/cacher_whitebox_test.go:666:6: call to T.Fatalf
vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/cacher/cacher_whitebox_test.go:724:2: the goroutine calls T.Fatalf, which must be called in the same goroutine as the test (SA2002)
vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/cacher/cacher_whitebox_test.go:734:5: call to T.Fatalf
vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/cacher/cacher_whitebox_test.go:927:4: ineffective break statement. Did you mean to break out of the outer loop? (SA4011)
vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/cacher/cacher_whitebox_test.go:978:2: the goroutine calls T.Fatalf, which must be called in the same goroutine as the test (SA2002)
vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/cacher/cacher_whitebox_test.go:983:5: call to T.Fatalf
vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/cacher/caching_object_test.go:137:3: the goroutine calls T.Fatalf, which must be called in the same goroutine as the test (SA2002)
vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/cacher/caching_object_test.go:152:5: call to T.Fatalf
vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/cacher/watch_cache_test.go:407:2: this value of err is never used (SA4006)
vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/etcd3/store_test.go:1914:3: field t is unused (U1000)
vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/selection_predicate_test.go:33:6: type IgnoredList is unused (U1000)
vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/tests/cacher_test.go:949:2: the goroutine calls T.Fatalf, which must be called in the same goroutine as the test (SA2002)
vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/tests/cacher_test.go:959:6: call to T.Fatalf
vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/value/encrypt/envelope/grpc_service_unix_test.go:135:4: the goroutine calls T.Fatalf, which must be called in the same goroutine as the test (SA2002)
vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/value/encrypt/envelope/grpc_service_unix_test.go:141:6: call to T.Fatalf
vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/value/encrypt/envelope/grpc_service_unix_test.go:150:4: the goroutine calls T.Fatalf, which must be called in the same goroutine as the test (SA2002)
vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/value/encrypt/envelope/grpc_service_unix_test.go:159:6: call to T.Fatalf
vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/value/encrypt/envelope/grpc_service_unix_test.go:224:2: the goroutine calls T.Fatalf, which must be called in the same goroutine as the test (SA2002)
vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/value/encrypt/envelope/grpc_service_unix_test.go:231:4: call to T.Fatalf
vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/util/webhook/certs_test.go:71:5: var badCAKey is unused (U1000)
vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/util/wsstream/conn_test.go:58:2: the goroutine calls T.Fatal, which must be called in the same goroutine as the test (SA2002)
vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/util/wsstream/conn_test.go:62:4: call to T.Fatal
vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/util/wsstream/conn_test.go:75:2: the goroutine calls T.Fatalf, which must be called in the same goroutine as the test (SA2002)
vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/util/wsstream/conn_test.go:78:4: call to T.Fatalf
vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/util/wsstream/conn_test.go:140:2: the goroutine calls T.Fatal, which must be called in the same goroutine as the test (SA2002)
vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/util/wsstream/conn_test.go:144:4: call to T.Fatal
vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/util/wsstream/conn_test.go:157:2: the goroutine calls T.Fatalf, which must be called in the same goroutine as the test (SA2002)
vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/util/wsstream/conn_test.go:160:4: call to T.Fatalf

Please review the above warnings. You can test via:
  hack/verify-staticcheck.sh <failing package>
If the above warnings do not make sense, you can exempt the line or file. See:
  https://staticcheck.io/docs/#ignoring-problems

+++ exit code: 1
+++ error: 1
FAILED   verify-staticcheck.sh  12s
========================
FAILED TESTS
========================
hack/make-rules/../../hack/verify-staticcheck.sh
make: *** [Makefile:129: verify] Error 1

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Part of #92402

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

NONE

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. kind/cleanup Categorizes issue or PR as related to cleaning up code, process, or technical debt. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. needs-sig Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `sig/foo` label and requires one. needs-triage Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `triage/foo` label and requires one. labels Oct 18, 2020
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Welcome @obeyda!

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 k8s-ci-robot added needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. needs-priority Indicates a PR lacks a `priority/foo` label and requires one. labels Oct 18, 2020
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @obeyda. 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
Copy link
Contributor

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 k8s-ci-robot added the cncf-cla: no Indicates the PR's author has not signed the CNCF CLA. label Oct 18, 2020
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added area/apiserver sig/api-machinery Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG API Machinery. sig/auth Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Auth. and removed needs-sig Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `sig/foo` label and requires one. labels Oct 18, 2020
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: obeyda
To complete the pull request process, please assign lavalamp after the PR has been reviewed.
You can assign the PR to them by writing /assign @lavalamp in a comment when ready.

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

@obeyda
Copy link
Contributor Author

obeyda commented Oct 18, 2020

/check-cla

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. and removed cncf-cla: no Indicates the PR's author has not signed the CNCF CLA. labels Oct 18, 2020
MHBauer
MHBauer reviewed Oct 20, 2020
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@MHBauer MHBauer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/ok-to-test
Please squash the commits together, and maybe add the static check output to the commit message so we can understand why the changes are made.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. and removed needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Oct 20, 2020
@fedebongio
Copy link
Contributor

/assign @jingyih
/triage accepted

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added triage/accepted Indicates an issue or PR is ready to be actively worked on. and removed needs-triage Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `triage/foo` label and requires one. labels Oct 20, 2020
@obeyda
Copy link
Contributor Author

obeyda commented Oct 20, 2020

Commits squashed, also I've updated the description with the static check output

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. and removed do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. labels Oct 26, 2020
@obeyda
fix staticcheck failures: apiserver/pkg/{storage,util}
3e1b498 
fix static check failures for these folders:
- vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage
- vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/cacher
- vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/etcd3
- vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/tests
- vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/value/encrypt/envelope
- vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/util/webhook
- vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/util/wsstream

Errors from staticcheck:
  vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/cacher/cacher_whitebox_test.go:656:2: the goroutine calls T.Fatalf, which must be called in the same goroutine as the test (SA2002)
  vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/cacher/cacher_whitebox_test.go:666:6: call to T.Fatalf
  vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/cacher/cacher_whitebox_test.go:724:2: the goroutine calls T.Fatalf, which must be called in the same goroutine as the test (SA2002)
  vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/cacher/cacher_whitebox_test.go:734:5: call to T.Fatalf
  vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/cacher/cacher_whitebox_test.go:927:4: ineffective break statement. Did you mean to break out of the outer loop? (SA4011)
  vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/cacher/cacher_whitebox_test.go:978:2: the goroutine calls T.Fatalf, which must be called in the same goroutine as the test (SA2002)
  vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/cacher/cacher_whitebox_test.go:983:5: call to T.Fatalf
  vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/cacher/caching_object_test.go:137:3: the goroutine calls T.Fatalf, which must be called in the same goroutine as the test (SA2002)
  vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/cacher/caching_object_test.go:152:5: call to T.Fatalf
  vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/cacher/watch_cache_test.go:407:2: this value of err is never used (SA4006)
  vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/etcd3/store_test.go:1914:3: field t is unused (U1000)
  vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/selection_predicate_test.go:33:6: type IgnoredList is unused (U1000)
  vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/tests/cacher_test.go:949:2: the goroutine calls T.Fatalf, which must be called in the same goroutine as the test (SA2002)
  vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/tests/cacher_test.go:959:6: call to T.Fatalf
  vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/value/encrypt/envelope/grpc_service_unix_test.go:135:4: the goroutine calls T.Fatalf, which must be called in the same goroutine as the test (SA2002)
  vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/value/encrypt/envelope/grpc_service_unix_test.go:141:6: call to T.Fatalf
  vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/value/encrypt/envelope/grpc_service_unix_test.go:150:4: the goroutine calls T.Fatalf, which must be called in the same goroutine as the test (SA2002)
  vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/value/encrypt/envelope/grpc_service_unix_test.go:159:6: call to T.Fatalf
  vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/value/encrypt/envelope/grpc_service_unix_test.go:224:2: the goroutine calls T.Fatalf, which must be called in the same goroutine as the test (SA2002)
  vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/value/encrypt/envelope/grpc_service_unix_test.go:231:4: call to T.Fatalf
  vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/util/webhook/certs_test.go:71:5: var badCAKey is unused (U1000)
  vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/util/wsstream/conn_test.go:58:2: the goroutine calls T.Fatal, which must be called in the same goroutine as the test (SA2002)
  vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/util/wsstream/conn_test.go:62:4: call to T.Fatal
  vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/util/wsstream/conn_test.go:75:2: the goroutine calls T.Fatalf, which must be called in the same goroutine as the test (SA2002)
  vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/util/wsstream/conn_test.go:78:4: call to T.Fatalf
  vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/util/wsstream/conn_test.go:140:2: the goroutine calls T.Fatal, which must be called in the same goroutine as the test (SA2002)
  vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/util/wsstream/conn_test.go:144:4: call to T.Fatal
  vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/util/wsstream/conn_test.go:157:2: the goroutine calls T.Fatalf, which must be called in the same goroutine as the test (SA2002)
  vendor/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/util/wsstream/conn_test.go:160:4: call to T.Fatalf

Part of kubernetes#92402
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Oct 29, 2020
@obeyda
Copy link
Contributor Author

obeyda commented Oct 29, 2020

/retest

@obeyda
Copy link
Contributor Author

obeyda commented Oct 29, 2020

I think the failing tests aren't related to my changes, before rebase all tests were passing

@obeyda
Copy link
Contributor Author

obeyda commented Oct 31, 2020

/test pull-kubernetes-e2e-kind
/test pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-ubuntu-containerd

@obeyda obeyda requested a review from MHBauer November 2, 2020 08:19
@obeyda
Copy link
Contributor Author

obeyda commented Nov 2, 2020

@jingyih, PTAL

jingyih
jingyih reviewed Nov 3, 2020
View reviewed changes
staging/src/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/cacher/cacher_whitebox_test.go
@@ -682,9 +684,15 @@ func TestCacherNoLeakWithMultipleWatchers(t *testing.T) {
}
}
}()
go func() {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sorry I do not follow why we need a new go routine here?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@obeyda obeyda Nov 3, 2020 •
edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

this is so we don't block and allow receive on errorCh on line 693 if err = <- errorCh; err != nil {...}

staging/src/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/cacher/cacher_whitebox_test.go
@@ -731,7 +740,7 @@ func testCacherSendBookmarkEvents(t *testing.T, allowWatchBookmarks, expectedBoo
ResourceVersion: fmt.Sprintf("%v", resourceVersion+uint64(i)),
}})
if err != nil {
t.Fatalf("failed to add a pod: %v", err)
errorCh <- fmt.Errorf("failed to add a pod: %v", err)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Upon getting a non-nil error, we should return here? (as apposed to keep trying in the loop)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Agreed, will add it.

Suggested change
errorCh <- fmt.Errorf("failed to add a pod: %v", err)
errorCh <- fmt.Errorf("failed to add a pod: %v", err)
return

staging/src/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/cacher/cacher_whitebox_test.go
@@ -720,6 +728,7 @@ func testCacherSendBookmarkEvents(t *testing.T, allowWatchBookmarks, expectedBoo
t.Fatalf("Failed to create watch: %v", err)
}

errorCh := make(chan error, 1)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

defer close this channel?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@obeyda obeyda Nov 4, 2020 •
edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I didn't think we'll need to close this since it's only used in a select statement, but if you think it's necessary I'll update that.

staging/src/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/cacher/cacher_whitebox_test.go
@@ -924,7 +937,6 @@ func TestDispatchingBookmarkEventsWithConcurrentStop(t *testing.T) {

select {
case <-done:
break
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why this is removed?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

because this is an ineffective break,
error from static check:

ineffective break statement. Did you mean to break out of the outer loop? (SA4011)

staging/src/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/cacher/cacher_whitebox_test.go Outdated
}
if event.Type == watch.Bookmark && rv == uint64(expectedRV) {
select {
case <-done:
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sorry I do not follow why we need the done channel to exit the function? Aren't the existing return statements in this function enough?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

My bad 😄, this is actually not needed here (I had in mind this is multiple goroutines, but it's only one)

staging/src/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/cacher/cacher_whitebox_test.go
}
}
}()

// Simulate progress notify event.
cacher.watchCache.UpdateResourceVersion(strconv.Itoa(expectedRV))

wg.Wait()
go func() {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Same here, not sure why a new go routine is needed.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Same as above, to avoid blocking and allow receive on if err = <- errorCh; err != nil {...}

staging/src/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/storage/cacher/caching_object_test.go
@@ -141,20 +143,34 @@ func TestCachingObjectRaces(t *testing.T) {
for _, encoder := range encoders {
buffer.Reset()
if err := object.CacheEncode(encoder.identifier, encoder.encode, buffer); err != nil {
t.Errorf("unexpected error: %v", err)
errorCh <- fmt.Errorf("unexpected error: %v", err)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is the staticcheck complaining these "Errorf" statements?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

No, the staticcheck is complaining about the Fatalf that exists in this goroutine, but since I fixed that, I also updated the Errorf statements to use the same approach.

@obeyda
review: channel suggestions
7dd832a 
remove unneeded channel
defer close for errorCh
add missing return after errorCh send
@obeyda obeyda requested a review from jingyih November 4, 2020 08:38
@kubeedge-bot
Copy link

@obeyda: PR needs rebase.

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.

1 similar comment
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@obeyda: PR needs rebase.

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 the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jan 14, 2021
@ritazh ritazh added this to In Progress in SIG Auth Old Apr 9, 2021
@fejta-bot
Copy link

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

Send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.
/lifecycle stale

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. label Apr 14, 2021
@enj enj moved this from Needs Triage PRs to Not Sure in SIG Auth Old Apr 22, 2021
@liggitt liggitt moved this from Needs Triage, Not Sure if Auth to Backlog in SIG Auth Old May 7, 2021
@liggitt liggitt moved this from Backlog to In Progress (v1.22) in SIG Auth Old May 7, 2021
@liggitt liggitt moved this from In Progress (v1.22) to Changes Requested (v1.22) in SIG Auth Old May 7, 2021
@fejta-bot
Copy link

Stale issues rot after 30d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle rotten.
Rotten issues close after an additional 30d of inactivity.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

Send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.
/lifecycle rotten

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added lifecycle/rotten Denotes an issue or PR that has aged beyond stale and will be auto-closed. and removed lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. labels May 14, 2021
@fejta-bot
Copy link

Rotten issues close after 30d of inactivity.
Reopen the issue with /reopen.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle rotten.

Send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.
/close

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@fejta-bot: Closed this PR.

In response to this:

Rotten issues close after 30d of inactivity.
Reopen the issue with /reopen.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle rotten.

Send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.
/close

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.

@enj enj removed this from Changes Requested (v1.22) in SIG Auth Old Jul 12, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@hongchaodeng hongchaodeng Awaiting requested review from hongchaodeng

@ncdc ncdc Awaiting requested review from ncdc

@MHBauer MHBauer Awaiting requested review from MHBauer

@jingyih jingyih Awaiting requested review from jingyih

Assignees

@jingyih jingyih

Labels
area/apiserver cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. kind/cleanup Categorizes issue or PR as related to cleaning up code, process, or technical debt. lifecycle/rotten Denotes an issue or PR that has aged beyond stale and will be auto-closed. needs-priority Indicates a PR lacks a `priority/foo` label and requires one. needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. sig/api-machinery Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG API Machinery. sig/auth Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Auth. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. triage/accepted Indicates an issue or PR is ready to be actively worked on.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
7 participants
@obeyda @k8s-ci-robot @fedebongio @jingyih @kubeedge-bot @fejta-bot @MHBauer