OCPBUGS-28244: Account for endpoint not being rerturned when building cloud configuration

[theobarberbany]

This change updates AzureCloudConfigFromURL to check that the URL
(ResourceManagerEndpoint) that is used to build the config has been
returned. If it has not, it sets it using the URL provided.

This avoids the case where the endpoint is used to build config, but
does not return it's self - causing the created configuration to fail.

To make this work, we must update go.mod to replace the vendored package
with the one in the fork, and revendor. If we do not revendor, the
changes in the fork are not propagated to the /vendor directory and are
silently ignored.

[openshift-ci]

Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request.
If you want CI signal for your change, please convert it to an actual PR.
You can still manually trigger a test run with /test all

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign joelspeed for approval. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

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

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

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

[sunzhaohua2]

/label qe-approved

[openshift-ci-robot]

@theobarberbany: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-28244, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

• bug is open, matching expected state (open)
• bug target version (4.16.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.16.0)
• bug is in the state New, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @sunzhaohua2

The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

In response to this:

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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@theobarberbany: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-28244, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

• bug is open, matching expected state (open)
• bug target version (4.16.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.16.0)
• bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @sunzhaohua2

In response to this:

This change updates AzureCloudConfigFromURL to check that the URL
(ResourceManagerEndpoint) that is used to build the config has been
returned. If it has not, it sets it using the URL provided.

This avoids the case where the endpoint is used to build config, but
does not return it's self - causing the created configuration to fail.

To make this work, we must update go.mod to replace the vendored package
with the one in the fork, and revendor.

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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[elmiko]

this looks good to me, is there any unit testing we could add to confirm the behavior?

e.g. could we add something to existing tests, i don't think we need to make a new test suite for this.

[theobarberbany]

@elmiko I've added a test in a separate commit.

In order to do this i've had to update the azclient module go.mod and , which leaves us with a pretty huge diff (any change requires a revendor) :(

I'm not sure if there's another approach here that is nicer / more flexible. It feels insane for this to be a 1000+ file change for what is actually changing a single file and it's test... :/ Perhaps if i drop the klog addition, we won't have such a large diff?

[elmiko]

I'm not sure if there's another approach here that is nicer / more flexible. It feels insane for this to be a 1000+ file change for what is actually changing a single file and it's test... :/ Perhaps if i drop the klog addition, we won't have such a large diff?

agreed, it doesn't feel good to force this large of a dependency update. i'd say try it out without the klog change just to see if it does reduce the amount of change.

the test itself looks good to me, but do we need a negative assertion as well?

[openshift-ci]

@theobarberbany: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name	Commit	Details	Required	Rerun command
ci/prow/verify-git-history	fef370b	link	false	/test verify-git-history
ci/prow/e2e-azure-ovn-upgrade	fef370b	link	true	/test e2e-azure-ovn-upgrade
ci/prow/verify-commits	fef370b	link	false	/test verify-commits

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

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.

[theobarberbany]

Closing this, as we've taken the issue upstream :

kubernetes-sigs#5643

kubernetes-sigs#5651

[openshift-ci-robot]

@theobarberbany: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-28244. The bug has been updated to no longer refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker. All external bug links have been closed. The bug has been moved to the NEW state.

In response to this:

This change updates AzureCloudConfigFromURL to check that the URL
(ResourceManagerEndpoint) that is used to build the config has been
returned. If it has not, it sets it using the URL provided.

This avoids the case where the endpoint is used to build config, but
does not return it's self - causing the created configuration to fail.

To make this work, we must update go.mod to replace the vendored package
with the one in the fork, and revendor. If we do not revendor, the
changes in the fork are not propagated to the /vendor directory and are
silently ignored.

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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.