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.

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

Respect ErrorResults returned from preflight checks #386

Conversation

tomasaschan
Copy link
Member

@tomasaschan tomasaschan commented Apr 29, 2024

What this PR does / why we need it:
A common pattern in our operators is to use preflight checks to call out to some external system for more information (that can be written e.g. to the status of the DeclarativeObject) or to validate that some property of the spec meets requirements to be able to expand the channel manifests. If the check fails, sometimes the right behavior is to requeue with backoff - but
often it's not: e.g., if the spec is deemed invalid, there's no reason to requeue the resource. If spec changes we'll get a new event anyway, and until spec changes we won't be able to reconcile.

There is already a ErrorResult type that can be used in a Preflight implementation to signal what we want the reconciliation function to return, but it's currently not being respected. This change addresses that.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #374

A common pattern in our operators is to use preflight checks to call out to some external system
for more information (that can be written e.g. to the status of the `DeclarativeObject`) or to
validate that some property of the `spec` meets requirements to be able to expand the channel
manifests. If the check fails, sometimes the right behavior is to requeue with backoff - but
often it's not: e.g., if the spec is deemed invalid, there's no reason to requeue the resource.
If spec changes we'll get a new event anyway, and until spec changes we won't be able to reconcile.

There is already a `ErrorResult` type that can be used in a Preflight implementation to signal
what we want the reconciliation function to return, but it's currently not being respected. This
change addresses that.
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. label Apr 29, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. label Apr 29, 2024
@tomasaschan
Copy link
Member Author

/assign justinsb

@tomasaschan
Copy link
Member Author

/assign atoato88

Copy link
Contributor

@justinsb justinsb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for fixing - I agree this looks like an oversight / partial implementation of ErrorResult.

/approve
/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jun 8, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: justinsb, tomasaschan

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 [justinsb,tomasaschan]

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 k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Jun 8, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit e1ad4dc into kubernetes-sigs:master Jun 8, 2024
6 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. lgtm "Looks good to me", 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
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Error is logged even if result of status.Preflight doesn't have one
4 participants