🏃 Update status.controlPlaneInitialized from cluster controller #1356

tahsinrahman · 2019-08-31T07:24:51Z

What this PR does / why we need it:

Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):
Fixes #1333

controllers/cluster_controller.go

tahsinrahman · 2019-09-04T06:31:27Z

/test pull-cluster-api-test

controllers/cluster_controller.go

vincepri

Small nits, otherwise lgtm

controllers/cluster_controller.go

ncdc · 2019-09-04T16:20:31Z

controllers/cluster_controller.go

+
+// MachineToMachineSets is a handler.ToRequestsFunc to be used to enqeue requests for reconciliation
+// for Cluster to update its status.controlplaneInitialized field
+func (r *ClusterReconciler) MachineToCluster(o handler.MapObject) []ctrl.Request {


Suggested change

func (r *ClusterReconciler) MachineToCluster(o handler.MapObject) []ctrl.Request {

func (r *ClusterReconciler) machineToCluster(o handler.MapObject) []ctrl.Request {

i exported this to keep consistency with MachineToMachineSets and MachineSetToDeployments, whould we also un-export them too?

ncdc · 2019-09-04T16:25:39Z

controllers/cluster_controller.go

+
+	m, ok := o.Object.(*clusterv1.Machine)
+	if !ok {
+		r.Log.Error(errors.New("did not get machine"), "got", fmt.Sprintf("%T", o.Object))


I'm almost hesitant to suggest this, but I wonder if we should consider a panic here - if we don't get the expected type, it's because of programmer error and the implication is that we'll never set ControlPlaneInitialized to true. It's probably easier to diagnose programmer error with a panic vs. digging through logs. Am I crazy? 😄

I don't disagree, I'm +1 to use Fatal or panic

This is what we are doing in other places, so we'd need to update all the existing use cases as well if we wanted to go down that path. (Not saying we shouldn't, just outside the scope of this PR).

controllers/cluster_controller.go

controllers/cluster_controller_test.go

tahsinrahman · 2019-09-04T17:24:03Z

/test pull-cluster-api-test

tahsinrahman · 2019-09-04T17:26:58Z

controllers/cluster_controller.go

+}
+
+// getMachinesInCluster returns all of the Machine objects that belong to the cluster
+func (r *ClusterReconciler) getMachinesInCluster(ctx context.Context, namespace, name string) ([]*clusterv1.Machine, error) {


@vincepri @ncdc I created this function similar to this in machine controller. should move this as a common function elsewhere?

cluster-api/controllers/machine_controller.go

Lines 264 to 284 in 2a55573

func (r *MachineReconciler) getMachinesInCluster(ctx context.Context, namespace, name string) ([]*clusterv1.Machine, error) {

if name == "" {

return nil, nil

}

machineList := &clusterv1.MachineList{}

labels := map[string]string{clusterv1.MachineClusterLabelName: name}

if err := r.Client.List(ctx, machineList, client.InNamespace(namespace), client.MatchingLabels(labels)); err != nil {

return nil, errors.Wrap(err, "failed to list machines")

}

machines := []*clusterv1.Machine{}

for i := range machineList.Items {

m := &machineList.Items[i]

if m.DeletionTimestamp.IsZero() {

machines = append(machines, m)

}

}

return machines, nil

}

Yes please! You can change the signature so it takes in the Client. As for where to put it... I'm trying to avoid generic files/packages like util or helpers. Even though I just said let's avoid "helpers", maybe we put it in controllers/machine_helpers.go? @vincepri wdyt?

Either way should be fine, I'm also ok adding it in util/util.go for now and remove it later, there are a bunch of other similar functions that take a Controller Runtime Client and return something, so this wouldn't be anything new.

If we want to make it private, controllers/helpers.go or controllers/machine_helpers.go as you suggested sounds good.

lets address it in a separate pr after it is merged?

ncdc · 2019-09-11T15:07:45Z

controllers/cluster_controller.go

+
+	machines, err := r.getMachinesInCluster(ctx, cluster.Namespace, cluster.Name)
+	if err != nil {
+		r.Log.Error(err, "error getting machines in cluster", "cluster", cluster.Name)


We should either do "cluster", fmt.Sprintf("%s/%s", cluster.Namespace, cluster.Name), or include "namespace" as a separate field.

controllers/cluster_controller.go

controllers/cluster_controller_test.go

ncdc · 2019-09-11T15:18:43Z

@tahsinrahman sorry for the delay in reviewing - just added several comments.

ncdc · 2019-09-12T14:36:38Z

LGTM - @vincepri ?

vincepri · 2019-09-12T14:49:07Z

controllers/cluster_controller.go

+		return nil
+	}
+
+	cluster, err := util.GetClusterFromMetadata(context.TODO(), r.Client, m.ObjectMeta)


Can we remove this query and just enqueue the request from the label name, and assume the same namespace?

This is a code copy from the machine controller. The get is here so we can check control plane initialized below on line 365

The method name threw me off a little controlPlaneMachineToCluster, I'm fine leaving like this, but we could save an extra call and just reconcile again. In theory, it should be a noop.

It pulls from the cache, so it's not a network hit. I guess it comes down to whether or not you want to avoid enqueuing if you know up front it's not relevant (non control plane machine).

vincepri · 2019-09-12T14:50:58Z

controllers/cluster_controller.go

+	if !util.IsControlPlaneMachine(m) {
+		return nil
+	}
+	if m.Status.NodeRef == nil {


We can do an OR and merge the two ifs above

I'd prefer to leave it like this

vincepri · 2019-09-12T15:20:51Z

/lgtm

ncdc · 2019-09-12T15:25:50Z

/approve

k8s-ci-robot · 2019-09-12T15:25:56Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: ncdc, tahsinrahman

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~~ [ncdc]

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

k8s-ci-robot added cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Aug 31, 2019

k8s-ci-robot requested review from ncdc and vincepri August 31, 2019 07:25

tahsinrahman force-pushed the cluster-status branch from 5b0cdc0 to 10edc48 Compare August 31, 2019 07:28

k8s-ci-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Aug 31, 2019

tahsinrahman force-pushed the cluster-status branch from 10edc48 to 6d98d29 Compare August 31, 2019 07:46

ncdc reviewed Sep 3, 2019

View reviewed changes

controllers/cluster_controller.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

tahsinrahman force-pushed the cluster-status branch 2 times, most recently from 3eb208b to e8515e2 Compare September 4, 2019 06:24

detiber reviewed Sep 4, 2019

View reviewed changes

controllers/cluster_controller.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

vincepri reviewed Sep 4, 2019

View reviewed changes

controllers/cluster_controller.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

controllers/cluster_controller.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

ncdc reviewed Sep 4, 2019

View reviewed changes

tahsinrahman force-pushed the cluster-status branch from e8515e2 to a7a9129 Compare September 4, 2019 17:19

tahsinrahman commented Sep 4, 2019

View reviewed changes

tahsinrahman requested review from ncdc, vincepri and detiber September 6, 2019 21:18

tahsinrahman force-pushed the cluster-status branch 2 times, most recently from 2a3bcd9 to e97d379 Compare September 10, 2019 02:37

ncdc reviewed Sep 11, 2019

View reviewed changes

controllers/cluster_controller.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

ncdc reviewed Sep 11, 2019

View reviewed changes

controllers/cluster_controller.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

ncdc reviewed Sep 11, 2019

View reviewed changes

controllers/cluster_controller.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

ncdc reviewed Sep 11, 2019

View reviewed changes

controllers/cluster_controller_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

ncdc reviewed Sep 11, 2019

View reviewed changes

controllers/cluster_controller_test.go Show resolved Hide resolved

ncdc changed the title ~~Update status.controlPlaneInitialized from cluster controller~~ 🏃 Update status.controlPlaneInitialized from cluster controller Sep 11, 2019

ncdc changed the title ~~🏃 Update status.controlPlaneInitialized from cluster controller~~ 🏃 Update status.controlPlaneInitialized from cluster controller Sep 11, 2019

tahsinrahman force-pushed the cluster-status branch from e97d379 to 5ca8ee2 Compare September 12, 2019 14:33

Update status.controlPlaneInitialized from cluster controller

fba571d

tahsinrahman force-pushed the cluster-status branch from 5ca8ee2 to fba571d Compare September 12, 2019 14:34

vincepri reviewed Sep 12, 2019

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot assigned vincepri Sep 12, 2019

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Sep 12, 2019

ncdc mentioned this pull request Sep 12, 2019

Make getMachinesInCluster a helper function that both ClusterReconciler and MachineReconciler can use #1414

Closed

k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Sep 12, 2019

k8s-ci-robot merged commit 1d7c4b9 into kubernetes-sigs:master Sep 12, 2019

tahsinrahman deleted the cluster-status branch September 27, 2019 20:39

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

🏃 Update status.controlPlaneInitialized from cluster controller #1356

🏃 Update status.controlPlaneInitialized from cluster controller #1356

tahsinrahman commented Aug 31, 2019

tahsinrahman commented Sep 4, 2019

vincepri left a comment

ncdc Sep 4, 2019

tahsinrahman Sep 4, 2019

ncdc Sep 4, 2019

vincepri Sep 4, 2019

detiber Sep 4, 2019

tahsinrahman commented Sep 4, 2019

tahsinrahman Sep 4, 2019

ncdc Sep 11, 2019

vincepri Sep 11, 2019

tahsinrahman Sep 12, 2019

ncdc Sep 12, 2019

ncdc Sep 12, 2019

ncdc Sep 11, 2019

ncdc commented Sep 11, 2019

ncdc commented Sep 12, 2019

vincepri Sep 12, 2019

ncdc Sep 12, 2019

vincepri Sep 12, 2019

ncdc Sep 12, 2019

vincepri Sep 12, 2019

ncdc Sep 12, 2019

vincepri commented Sep 12, 2019

ncdc commented Sep 12, 2019

k8s-ci-robot commented Sep 12, 2019

	func (r *ClusterReconciler) MachineToCluster(o handler.MapObject) []ctrl.Request {
	func (r *ClusterReconciler) machineToCluster(o handler.MapObject) []ctrl.Request {

	func (r MachineReconciler) getMachinesInCluster(ctx context.Context, namespace, name string) ([]clusterv1.Machine, error) {
	if name == "" {
	return nil, nil
	}

	machineList := &clusterv1.MachineList{}
	labels := map[string]string{clusterv1.MachineClusterLabelName: name}

	if err := r.Client.List(ctx, machineList, client.InNamespace(namespace), client.MatchingLabels(labels)); err != nil {
	return nil, errors.Wrap(err, "failed to list machines")
	}

	machines := []*clusterv1.Machine{}
	for i := range machineList.Items {
	m := &machineList.Items[i]
	if m.DeletionTimestamp.IsZero() {
	machines = append(machines, m)
	}
	}
	return machines, nil
	}

🏃 Update status.controlPlaneInitialized from cluster controller #1356

🏃 Update status.controlPlaneInitialized from cluster controller #1356

Conversation

tahsinrahman commented Aug 31, 2019

tahsinrahman commented Sep 4, 2019

vincepri left a 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

tahsinrahman commented Sep 4, 2019

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

ncdc commented Sep 11, 2019

ncdc commented Sep 12, 2019

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

vincepri commented Sep 12, 2019

ncdc commented Sep 12, 2019

k8s-ci-robot commented Sep 12, 2019