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

Ignore pending pods with running init containers when trying to detect crash loops #22712

Merged
merged 1 commit into from May 1, 2019
Merged

Ignore pending pods with running init containers when trying to detect crash loops #22712

merged 1 commit into from May 1, 2019

Conversation

sanchezl
Copy link
Contributor

@sanchezl sanchezl commented Apr 29, 2019 •
edited

The pod created by oc adm must-gather spends a lot of time in pending state. This trips up the hot looping detection tests when they happen to run concurrently.

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. label Apr 29, 2019
@sanchezl
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

@smarterclayton
Copy link
Contributor

This is really specific. Checking for pending pods that have running init containers would probably be better

@sanchezl sanchezl force-pushed the e2e_must-gather_long_pending branch from 09124c0 to e635f9b Compare April 30, 2019 13:27
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Apr 30, 2019
@sanchezl sanchezl changed the title ignore must-gather pod when looking for crashlooping Ignore pending pods with running init containers when trying to detect crash loops Apr 30, 2019
@sanchezl sanchezl force-pushed the e2e_must-gather_long_pending branch from e635f9b to 44d8d37 Compare April 30, 2019 14:23
@deads2k
Copy link
Contributor

deads2k commented Apr 30, 2019

This is really specific. Checking for pending pods that have running init containers would probably be better

updated

/lgtm
/retest

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Apr 30, 2019
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: deads2k, sanchezl

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:

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 Apr 30, 2019
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

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

1 similar comment
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

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

@smarterclayton smarterclayton merged commit afa32e8 into openshift:master May 1, 2019
@smarterclayton
Copy link
Contributor

Merging to unblock folks and help clear the queue.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@adambkaplan adambkaplan Awaiting requested review from adambkaplan

@gabemontero gabemontero Awaiting requested review from gabemontero

Assignees

@deads2k deads2k

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/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
5 participants
@sanchezl @smarterclayton @deads2k @openshift-ci-robot @openshift-bot