Allow empty kube_node group #11248
Allow empty kube_node group #11248
Conversation
While uncommon, provisioning only a control plane is a valid use case, so don't block it.
k8s-ci-robot
added
kind/feature
k8s-ci-robot
added
cncf-cla: yes
|
Maybe 'warn' the user about it, so it's intentional to have only control plane. Should we add a test-case deploying control-plane only ? |
|
Do users read those ? I know we don't here, as there is a lot of noise in the ansible warnings + ignored errors from kubespray.
I don't think it would achieve "guarding against unintentional empty kube_node group".
|
|
/lgtm |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: mzaian, VannTen 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 |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
approved
|
/cherrypick release-2.25 |
|
@VannTen: new pull request created: #11249 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. |
While uncommon, provisioning only a control plane is a valid use case, so don't block it.
| @@ -1,10 +1,7 @@ | |||
| --- | |||
| - name: Stop if either kube_control_plane or kube_node group is empty | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
description is no longer accurate
While uncommon, provisioning only a control plane is a valid use case, so don't block it.
While uncommon, provisioning only a control plane is a valid use case, so don't block it.
What type of PR is this?
/kind feature
What this PR does / why we need it:
While uncommon, provisioning only a control plane is a valid use case,
so don't block it.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #11245
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:
/cherrypick release-2.25