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

Bug 1881907: Adds cluster version into the User-Agent header #175

Merged
merged 6 commits into from Sep 29, 2020

Conversation

0sewa0
Copy link
Contributor

@0sewa0 0sewa0 commented Sep 8, 2020

No description provided.

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Sep 8, 2020
@0sewa0 0sewa0 changed the title WIP: Adds version into the User-Agent header WIP: Adds cluster version into the User-Agent header Sep 8, 2020
@0sewa0 0sewa0 changed the title WIP: Adds cluster version into the User-Agent header Adds cluster version into the User-Agent header Sep 9, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Sep 9, 2020
Copy link
Contributor

@tisnik tisnik left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It looks ok (giving the ? string is expected by consumers)

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Sep 9, 2020
@0sewa0
Copy link
Contributor Author

0sewa0 commented Sep 9, 2020

/retest

2 similar comments
@0sewa0
Copy link
Contributor Author

0sewa0 commented Sep 9, 2020

/retest

@0sewa0
Copy link
Contributor Author

0sewa0 commented Sep 10, 2020

/retest

Copy link
Contributor

@rluders rluders left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm

@0sewa0
Copy link
Contributor Author

0sewa0 commented Sep 14, 2020

/retest

@iNecas
Copy link
Contributor

iNecas commented Sep 14, 2020

Looks good codewise but haven't a chance to try out: did anyone of the reviewers tried running this end2end?

@0sewa0
Copy link
Contributor Author

0sewa0 commented Sep 14, 2020

Don't know

@iNecas
Copy link
Contributor

iNecas commented Sep 14, 2020

Ok, I've tested via cluste-bot, as well as locally, and have seen the archvie getting though end2end, with the changes, so looks good from this perspective.

Code-wise, I know it follows an already established pattern, where the gatherer loads some info about the cluster and the client uses it when uploading the data. Said that, I don't like that approach a lot, as it couples the gathering and uploading in some unexpected way (what would happen if we had a configuration to not gather the cluster operators data).

Therefore, I'm good with acking this, as long as we have some refactoring task to decouple getting data for preparing the client from the generic gathering.

@0sewa0
Copy link
Contributor Author

0sewa0 commented Sep 14, 2020

The ClusterVersion is also from the gathering part, so I basically followed that pattern. IMO probably most of insights operator should be refactored, or at least the gathering part.
Few examples why:

  • Working in a file that is more than 1200 lines long is not fun. (also its named clusterconfig.go why ??)
  • Having i as the reference to the Gatherer object in methods is inconvenient.

@martinkunc
Copy link
Contributor

Good work, thank you!

Woudln't it be better to use RELEASE_VERSION env variable, which doesn't read value from cluster, but from Pod actually running ?

Maybe we could refactor the expression to method to return UserAgent value, together with waiting for ClusterVersion.
Also, I believe we could create the whole UserAgent string in semver form like:

func UserAgent(releaseVersionEnv, v apimachineryversion.Info, cv ClusterVersion) string
gitVersion := v.GitVersion
// Because we dont set GitVersion, just GitCommit, use kubernetes machinery, but fallback to RELEASE_VERSION envvar.
if gitVersion == version.GitVersion  { // default, not overwritten by build
  gitVersion = fmt.Sprintf("%s-%s", releaseVersionEnv, v.GitCommit)
}
return fmt.Sprintf("insights-operator/%s-%s cluster/%s",  gitVersion, cv.Spec.ClusterID)
}

@0sewa0
Copy link
Contributor Author

0sewa0 commented Sep 16, 2020

@iNecas what do you think about ^ ?

@0sewa0
Copy link
Contributor Author

0sewa0 commented Sep 22, 2020

/retest

@0sewa0
Copy link
Contributor Author

0sewa0 commented Sep 22, 2020

@iNecas @martinkunc please review :)

@0sewa0 0sewa0 changed the title Adds cluster version into the User-Agent header Bug 1881907: Adds cluster version into the User-Agent header Sep 23, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the bugzilla/severity-medium Referenced Bugzilla bug's severity is medium for the branch this PR is targeting. label Sep 23, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@0sewa0: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1881907, which is invalid:

  • expected the bug to target the "4.6.0" release, but it targets "---" instead

Comment /bugzilla refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Bugzilla bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

In response to this:

Bug 1881907: Adds cluster version into the User-Agent header

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.

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the bugzilla/invalid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is invalid for the branch this PR is targeting. label Sep 23, 2020
@0sewa0
Copy link
Contributor Author

0sewa0 commented Sep 23, 2020

/bugzilla refresh

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the bugzilla/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. label Sep 23, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@0sewa0: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1881907, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state. The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug
  • bug is open, matching expected state (open)
  • bug target release (4.6.0) matches configured target release for branch (4.6.0)
  • bug is in the state NEW, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, ON_DEV, POST, POST)

In response to this:

/bugzilla refresh

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.

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the bugzilla/invalid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is invalid for the branch this PR is targeting. label Sep 23, 2020
gitVersion = releaseVersionEnv
}
gitVersion = fmt.Sprintf("%s-%s", gitVersion, v.GitCommit)
return fmt.Sprintf("insights-operator/%s cluster/%s", gitVersion, cv.Spec.ClusterID)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Have you tried with real cluster, when trying against one, I'm getting v0.0.0-master+$Format:%h$-$Format:%H$ in the gitVersion, which doesn't look right.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@0sewa0 0sewa0 Sep 25, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

How can I try it on a 'real cluster' ? I always run it locally while pointing at a cluster created by cluster-bot

Copy link
Contributor Author

@0sewa0 0sewa0 Sep 28, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

So after a bit of investigation the build command doesn't seem to work as intended. The values the version returns are the defaults for that package and not the special ones that we should be setting during build.

build:
go build -ldflags "-X github.com/openshift/insights-operator/vendor/k8s.io/client-go/pkg/version.gitCommit=$$(git rev-parse HEAD) -X github.com/openshift/insights-operator/vendor/k8s.io/client-go/pkg/version.gitVersion=v1.0.0+$$(git rev-parse --short=7 HEAD)" -o bin/insights-operator ./cmd/insights-operator

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, that is right. That is why this change prefers RELEASE_VERSION envvar. If the var is set, it overrides the value built-in the package. Setting it should then affect Debug as well.
At some point later we would also like to resolve filling version in the ldflags, but I would do it in a separate CL.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@0sewa0 0sewa0 Sep 29, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I tested by using the envvar, which works but it still appends the v.GitCommit to the the value of the envvar and that will be"$Format:%H$". So the gitVersion will be {RELEASE_VERSION} - $Format:%H$ the commit part of it not really helpful

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

When you build it with make build, it should set the gitVersion in the binary, when you run the binnary afterwards, will it have it set right ? It should.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

conclusion: the make build had incorrect path to the packages where it tried to set the variables.

incorrect path: github.com/openshift/insights-operator/vendor/k8s.io/client-go/pkg/version.gitCommit
correct path: k8s.io/client-go/pkg/version.gitCommit

@martinkunc
Copy link
Contributor

Thank you, Marcell, good work.
/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Sep 29, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: 0sewa0, martinkunc, rluders, tisnik

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:
  • OWNERS [0sewa0,martinkunc,rluders,tisnik]

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

@0sewa0
Copy link
Contributor Author

0sewa0 commented Sep 29, 2020

/retest

1 similar comment
@0sewa0
Copy link
Contributor Author

0sewa0 commented Sep 29, 2020

/retest

@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit f2e008a into openshift:master Sep 29, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@0sewa0: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged:

Bugzilla bug 1881907 has been moved to the MODIFIED state.

In response to this:

Bug 1881907: Adds cluster version into the User-Agent header

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.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. bugzilla/severity-medium Referenced Bugzilla bug's severity is medium for the branch this PR is targeting. bugzilla/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

8 participants