✨ Make timeout to wait for blocked move global and configurable #9741
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
area/clusterctl
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
size/L
|
@nojnhuh: The following test failed, say
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. |
|
/cc @fabriziopandini |
| blockLogged := false | ||
| if err := retryWithExponentialBackoff(ctx, backoff, func(ctx context.Context) error { | ||
| if err := c.Get(ctx, key, obj); err != nil { | ||
| log.Info(fmt.Sprintf("Move blocked by %s annotation, waiting for it to be removed", clusterctlv1.BlockMoveAnnotation)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not super familiar clusterctl code base, how do you know this annotation is blocking here without checking for their existence?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
n.blockingMove which is checked above is populated earlier in the flow by checking the annotation. This was added by #9246:
|
lgtm |
| return errors.Wrapf(err, "error getting %s/%s", obj.GroupVersionKind(), key) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if _, exists := obj.GetAnnotations()[clusterctlv1.BlockMoveAnnotation]; exists { | ||
| if !blockLogged { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do we no longer need this check? Is this just extra code that was supposed to be removed in #9246?
| if err := c.Get(ctx, key, obj); err != nil { | ||
| log.Info(fmt.Sprintf("Move blocked by %s annotation, waiting for it to be removed", clusterctlv1.BlockMoveAnnotation)) | ||
| if err := retryWithExponentialBackoff(ctx, waitForResourceMoveUnblockedBackoff, func(ctx context.Context) error { | ||
| if err := retryWithExponentialBackoff(ctx, getResourceBackoff, func(ctx context.Context) error { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is getResourceBackoff basically an interval to retry under the long waitForResourceMoveUnblockedBackoff? I think a comment to explain this may help. I'm just a little confused about the nested retryWithExponentialBackoff.
|
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all PRs. This bot triages PRs according to the following rules:
You can:
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community. /lifecycle stale |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lifecycle/stale
|
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all PRs. This bot triages PRs according to the following rules:
You can:
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community. /lifecycle rotten |
k8s-ci-robot
added
lifecycle/rotten
|
@nojnhuh Are you still working on this? Happy to pair sometime and get this over the finish line if you still need this feature. |
|
/close Feel free to reopen if you want to continue the work |
|
@sbueringer: Closed this PR. In response to this:
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-sigs/prow repository. |
What this PR does / why we need it: Adds
--wait-for-unblock-timeouttoclusterctlto customize how long to wait for all resources not to be blocking a move operation. This PR is split into two commits: one implements the timeout mechanism and the other exposes the value of the timeout as a command line flag.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 #9194
/area clusterctl