🐛 Bubble up machine drain condition in MachinesReadyCondition

[typeid]

What this PR does / why we need it:
As described in the issue, a failing drain can currently block a scalable resource scale down / delete operation transparently.
This PR attemps to fix this issue by adding DrainingSucceededCondition to the summary of MachinesReadyCondition, bubbling up the drain result in the MachineSet and in the MachineDeployment after #9262.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #9285

/area machine

[k8s-ci-robot]

Welcome @typeid!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @typeid. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

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.

[sbueringer]

/ok-to-test

[sbueringer]

Look reasonable to me

/assign @enxebre @fabriziopandini @vincepri

[fabriziopandini]

This is a breaking change because it changes the semantic of the Ready condition, but IMO it is a good change to have so I'm +1 (but we should change PR type)
Opinions?

[sbueringer]

This is a breaking change because it changes the semantic of the Ready condition, but IMO it is a good change to have so I'm +1 (but we should change PR type) Opinions?

If this is a breaking change to our API (I don't know about the exact details of the policy for conditions), do we have to wait for the next apiVersion?

[enxebre]

I think it's technically a breaking change but in practice a UX bug fix so lgtm. This would only affect Machines that are already signalled for deletion. I can't think atm of any consumer that would be affected in that scenario.

[sbueringer]

Sounds good to me.

/lgtm

(I'm fine either way regarding the PR title icon)

[k8s-ci-robot]

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: 0f48c4ba1ff824023db49223f7b9b4a4f4057a6c

[vincepri]

/approve

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: vincepri

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 [vincepri]

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

[vincepri]

/hold

Is it a breaking change? Not really sure, the condition is a summary of other conditions, if the drain doesn't go through, the summary never gets updated. Are we treating the finite set of watched conditions as an API?

[typeid]

@vincepri judging by the above comments, my understanding is that we're fine categorizing this as a non-breaking/bugfix change.

[sbueringer]

@vincepri Not sure I understand what you mean with this one:

if the drain doesn't go through, the summary never gets updated.

Isn't the goal of this PR that the summary (aka ready condition) gets updated when the drain doesn't go through?

[vincepri]

My point was today's behavior, this PR fixes that which in my mind is a good thing

[sbueringer]

My point was today's behavior, this PR fixes that which in my mind is a good thing

Got it, sounds good to me

[typeid]

Rebased, should be good to go then :)

[sbueringer]

/lgtm

[k8s-ci-robot]

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: 8fa9900d27c3c2c80da823b615b35009b699b83f

[vincepri]

/hold cancel