Skip to content

pkg/asset/machines: Add load balancer refs to master machines on AWS#684

Merged
openshift-merge-robot merged 2 commits intoopenshift:masterfrom
csrwng:master_lbs
Nov 21, 2018
Merged

pkg/asset/machines: Add load balancer refs to master machines on AWS#684
openshift-merge-robot merged 2 commits intoopenshift:masterfrom
csrwng:master_lbs

Conversation

@csrwng
Copy link
Contributor

@csrwng csrwng commented Nov 15, 2018

Pulls the latest code from cluster-api-aws-provider and sets up publicIP and LoadBalancers on cluster machines.

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. label Nov 15, 2018
abhinavdahiya
abhinavdahiya reviewed Nov 15, 2018
View reviewed changes
abhinavdahiya
abhinavdahiya reviewed Nov 15, 2018
View reviewed changes
pkg/asset/machines/aws/machines.go Outdated
Copy link
Contributor

@abhinavdahiya abhinavdahiya Nov 15, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@wking @csrwng do you think this should be part of the Master and Worker generate?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@csrwng csrwng Nov 15, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@abhinavdahiya not sure what you mean... are you asking if it should be in its own function that's not common with workers?

Copy link
Contributor

@abhinavdahiya abhinavdahiya Nov 15, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

we do this here

installer/pkg/asset/machines/master.go

Lines 83 to 87 in 6a098fd

machines, err := aws.Machines(ic, &pool, "master", "master-user-data")
if err != nil {
return errors.Wrap(err, "failed to create master machine objects")
}

Copy link
Contributor Author

@csrwng csrwng Nov 16, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

got it, so you want the master-specific part to be placed in master.go

Copy link
Contributor

@abhinavdahiya abhinavdahiya Nov 16, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah makes most sense. But also we need take into account that hive should be able to apply those changes too.

wking
wking reviewed Nov 15, 2018
View reviewed changes
wking
wking reviewed Nov 15, 2018
View reviewed changes
pkg/asset/machines/aws/machines.go Outdated
Copy link
Member

@wking wking Nov 15, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Do we want to hard-code this? It currently matches this default from among these choices. But this code is far from that code. Can we push this setting up into a shared type (aws.MachinePool?) to stay DRY?

Copy link
Contributor

@abhinavdahiya abhinavdahiya Nov 15, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

i would not expose that in MachinePool and move

installer/pkg/tfvars/tfvars.go

Line 95 in 6a098fd

Endpoints: aws.EndpointsAll, // Default value for endpoints.
to be driven by Machines and MachineSets...

Copy link
Contributor Author

@csrwng csrwng Nov 16, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@abhinavdahiya do you mean that I should make machines.Master a dependency of TerraformVariables and pass in the Machine object to TFVars ?

Copy link
Contributor

@abhinavdahiya abhinavdahiya Nov 16, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@abhinavdahiya do you mean that I should make machines.Master a dependency of TerraformVariables and pass in the Machine object to TFVars ?

Yeah, but not in this PR, i don't think we need to do that now.

@csrwng csrwng force-pushed the master_lbs branch 2 times, most recently from 0704a23 to 6175028 Compare November 16, 2018 19:02
@csrwng
Copy link
Contributor Author

csrwng commented Nov 16, 2018

@abhinavdahiya @wking addressed your comments

@wking
Copy link
Member

wking commented Nov 20, 2018

This looks good to me, but I'll wait to give @abhinavdahiya another look at it to.

What does this actually do? We set up the load-balancer associations ourselves, so is this just keeping new cluster-api-aws-provider from stomping on that and pulling us out of those load balancers? Or making newer cluster-api-aws-provider happier when they notice that we are attached to those load balancers? Or setting the stage for masters that are created via the cluster API? Or...?

@csrwng
Copy link
Contributor Author

csrwng commented Nov 20, 2018

It’s meant to re-establish lb membership when a new master instance comes up in the case of a machine failure.

@abhinavdahiya
Copy link
Contributor

abhinavdahiya commented Nov 20, 2018

/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Nov 20, 2018
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci-robot commented Nov 20, 2018

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: abhinavdahiya, csrwng

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

The pull request process is described here

Details 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

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Nov 20, 2018
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-bot commented Nov 20, 2018

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

1 similar comment
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-bot commented Nov 20, 2018

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@crawford
Copy link
Contributor

crawford commented Nov 20, 2018

/retest

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-bot commented Nov 20, 2018

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

1 similar comment
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-bot commented Nov 21, 2018

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit 906b853 into openshift:master Nov 21, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@wking wking wking left review comments

@flaper87 flaper87 Awaiting requested review from flaper87

@russellb russellb Awaiting requested review from russellb

+1 more reviewer

@abhinavdahiya abhinavdahiya abhinavdahiya left review comments

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

@abhinavdahiya abhinavdahiya

Labels

approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files.

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants

@csrwng @wking @abhinavdahiya @openshift-ci-robot @openshift-bot @crawford @openshift-merge-robot