Bug 1833256: [vSphere] Fail machine if multiple resource pools found #585

alexander-demicev · 2020-05-12T09:20:05Z

Our current implementation allows users to either specify resourcePool in provider spec or leave it empty and fallback to default one. In case when more than one resource pools found lookup fails and the machine is stuck in Provisioning phase. In order to avoid machine getting stuck, this PR introduces machine failure on lookup error.

I have issues with creating additional resource pools in the mocked environment so tests will come later.

openshift-ci-robot · 2020-05-12T09:20:12Z

@alexander-demichev: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1833256, 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 (4.5.0) matches configured target release for branch (4.5.0)
bug is in the state NEW, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, ON_DEV, POST, POST)

In response to this:

Bug 1833256: [vSphere] Fail machine if multiple resource pools found

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.

enxebre · 2020-05-12T14:16:06Z

pkg/controller/vsphere/reconciler.go

@@ -442,6 +442,11 @@ func clone(s *machineScope) (string, error) {

 	resourcepool, err := s.GetSession().Finder.ResourcePoolOrDefault(s, resourcepoolPath)
 	if err != nil {
+		var multipleFoundError *find.MultipleFoundError


before we return an error, as far as I can see we keep returning an error? How does this make any difference for the machine to be stuck provisioning?

was this meant to return InvalidMachineConfiguration()?

you are right, changed it to InvalidMachineConfiguration()

enxebre · 2020-05-13T07:41:28Z

pkg/controller/vsphere/reconciler.go

+		if errors.As(err, &multipleFoundError) {
+			return "", machinecontroller.InvalidMachineConfiguration("multiple resource pools found, specify one in config")
+		}
+


can you describe user stories that make it legit to return the next line as not InvalidMachineConfiguration?

I thought about connection errors, when the controller can't reach vSphere endpoints.

is there a ways to discriminate that and include it here?

enxebre · 2020-05-15T14:10:20Z

pkg/controller/vsphere/reconciler.go

+		}
+
+		if errors.As(err, &notFoundError) {
+			return "", machinecontroller.InvalidMachineConfiguration("resource pool not found, specify valid value")


can we unit test this errors now?
we can move this to its own function if we need to.

wouldn't this be an issue for https://github.com/openshift/machine-api-operator/pull/585/files#diff-11b6610f82e5d47fdfb8dda44b90dd1eR435-R440
as well?

Creating and deleting resource pools in the mocked environment doesn't look easy. I'll add tests in a follow-up PR.

JoelSpeed · 2020-05-19T12:08:28Z

pkg/controller/vsphere/reconciler.go

@@ -442,6 +442,17 @@ func clone(s *machineScope) (string, error) {

 	resourcepool, err := s.GetSession().Finder.ResourcePoolOrDefault(s, resourcepoolPath)
 	if err != nil {
+		// TODO: move error checks to provider spec validation
+		var multipleFoundError *find.MultipleFoundError
+		var notFoundError *find.NotFoundError


Very minor nit, I would move this var declaration down to where it's used, grouping the vars declaration and usage makes the code slightly easier to follow

var multipleFoundError *find.MultipleFoundError if errors.As(err, &multipleFoundError) { return "", machinecontroller.InvalidMachineConfiguration("multiple resource pools found, specify one in config") } var notFoundError *find.NotFoundError if errors.As(err, &notFoundError) { return "", machinecontroller.InvalidMachineConfiguration("resource pool not found, specify valid value") }

JoelSpeed · 2020-05-19T12:16:39Z

/lgtm

Changes look good, should the tests PR be under the same BZ?

alexander-demicev · 2020-05-19T12:20:58Z

I don't think so but I'd like both PRs to get into 4.5 so we can avoid having BZs related to this kind of errors.

JoelSpeed · 2020-05-19T12:28:16Z

I don't think so but I'd like both PRs to get into 4.5 so we can avoid having BZs related to this kind of errors.

Cool, in which case make sure you create a BZ for that one as well

enxebre · 2020-05-19T12:32:35Z

/approve

openshift-ci-robot · 2020-05-19T12:32:51Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: enxebre

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~~ [enxebre]

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

openshift-bot · 2020-05-19T13:53:07Z

/retest

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

openshift-bot · 2020-05-19T14:19:24Z

/retest

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

openshift-bot · 2020-05-19T15:11:11Z

/retest

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

openshift-bot · 2020-05-19T15:50:12Z

/retest

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

openshift-bot · 2020-05-19T16:42:07Z

/retest

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

openshift-bot · 2020-05-19T17:21:07Z

/retest

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

openshift-bot · 2020-05-19T17:34:06Z

/retest

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

openshift-bot · 2020-05-19T18:00:07Z

/retest

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

openshift-bot · 2020-05-19T19:07:26Z

/retest

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

openshift-bot · 2020-05-19T19:18:11Z

/retest

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

openshift-bot · 2020-05-19T19:44:09Z

/retest

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

openshift-bot · 2020-05-19T20:10:09Z

/retest

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

openshift-bot · 2020-05-19T21:15:14Z

/retest

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

openshift-bot · 2020-05-20T00:43:09Z

/retest

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

openshift-bot · 2020-05-20T01:48:05Z

/retest

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

openshift-bot · 2020-05-20T03:06:20Z

/retest

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

openshift-bot · 2020-05-20T03:21:54Z

/retest

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

openshift-bot · 2020-05-20T04:37:04Z

/retest

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

openshift-bot · 2020-05-20T04:50:09Z

/retest

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

openshift-bot · 2020-05-20T05:03:05Z

/retest

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

openshift-bot · 2020-05-20T05:42:06Z

/retest

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

openshift-bot · 2020-05-20T06:34:16Z

/retest

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

openshift-ci-robot · 2020-05-20T06:39:59Z

@alexander-demichev: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests:

Test name	Commit	Details	Rerun command
ci/prow/e2e-azure	`ab2929a`	link	`/test e2e-azure`

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR.

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.

openshift-bot · 2020-05-20T06:47:06Z

/retest

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

openshift-ci-robot · 2020-05-20T08:03:50Z

@alexander-demichev: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged: openshift/machine-api-operator#585. Bugzilla bug 1833256 has been moved to the MODIFIED state.

In response to this:

Bug 1833256: [vSphere] Fail machine if multiple resource pools found

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 added bugzilla/severity-high Referenced Bugzilla bug's severity is high 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. labels May 12, 2020

openshift-ci-robot requested review from elmiko and JoelSpeed May 12, 2020 09:20

enxebre reviewed May 12, 2020

View reviewed changes

alexander-demicev force-pushed the resourcepool branch from b2587c4 to 0dba093 Compare May 12, 2020 14:34

enxebre reviewed May 13, 2020

View reviewed changes

alexander-demicev force-pushed the resourcepool branch from 0dba093 to c05bfce Compare May 15, 2020 14:01

enxebre reviewed May 15, 2020

View reviewed changes

alexander-demicev force-pushed the resourcepool branch 2 times, most recently from 3fa1f70 to 4c661cc Compare May 19, 2020 11:46

alexander-demicev mentioned this pull request May 19, 2020

Bug 1838504: [vSphere] Fail machine on invalid provider spec values #593

Merged

JoelSpeed reviewed May 19, 2020

View reviewed changes

Fail machine if multiple resource pools found

ab2929a

alexander-demicev force-pushed the resourcepool branch from 4c661cc to ab2929a Compare May 19, 2020 12:10

openshift-ci-robot assigned JoelSpeed May 19, 2020

openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label May 19, 2020

openshift-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label May 19, 2020

openshift-merge-robot merged commit fe76daf into openshift:master May 20, 2020

Bug 1833256: [vSphere] Fail machine if multiple resource pools found #585

Bug 1833256: [vSphere] Fail machine if multiple resource pools found #585

Conversation

alexander-demicev commented May 12, 2020

openshift-ci-robot commented May 12, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

enxebre May 12, 2020 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

JoelSpeed commented May 19, 2020

alexander-demicev commented May 19, 2020

JoelSpeed commented May 19, 2020

enxebre commented May 19, 2020

openshift-ci-robot commented May 19, 2020

openshift-bot commented May 19, 2020

openshift-bot commented May 19, 2020

openshift-bot commented May 19, 2020

openshift-bot commented May 19, 2020

openshift-bot commented May 19, 2020

openshift-bot commented May 19, 2020

openshift-bot commented May 19, 2020

openshift-bot commented May 19, 2020

openshift-bot commented May 19, 2020

openshift-bot commented May 19, 2020

openshift-bot commented May 19, 2020

openshift-bot commented May 19, 2020

openshift-bot commented May 19, 2020

openshift-bot commented May 20, 2020

openshift-bot commented May 20, 2020

openshift-bot commented May 20, 2020

openshift-bot commented May 20, 2020

openshift-bot commented May 20, 2020

openshift-bot commented May 20, 2020

openshift-bot commented May 20, 2020

openshift-bot commented May 20, 2020

openshift-bot commented May 20, 2020

openshift-ci-robot commented May 20, 2020 • edited

openshift-bot commented May 20, 2020

openshift-ci-robot commented May 20, 2020

enxebre May 12, 2020 •

edited

openshift-ci-robot commented May 20, 2020 •

edited