Remove deleted pending workloads from the cache so the visibility API results are correct #1679
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
release-note
✅ Deploy Preview for kubernetes-sigs-kueue ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
needs-ok-to-test
|
Hi @astefanutti. 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 Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the 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. |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
size/XL
|
/ok-to-test |
k8s-ci-robot
added
ok-to-test
|
Is the issue also reflected in |
|
/retest |
I think the bug is also impacting the |
k8s-ci-robot
added
size/M
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
|
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: 422ae1db1410c56cdf7baf767f5e564f3e9956de
|
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: alculquicondor, astefanutti 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
You're right! I've removed the integration tests for the visibility API, and added a test case to the existing cluster queue controller integration tests, that verifies the fix. I've kept it as minimal as possible this time, but feel free to suggest any other test cases that you think could be useful to add there. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
/lgtm
Just non-blocking nits to improve readability of the test.
/assign @tenzen-y @alculquicondor
| gomega.Expect(k8sClient.Create(ctx, workload)).To(gomega.Succeed()) | ||
| }) | ||
|
|
||
| // Pending workloads count is incremented as the workload is inadmissible |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
non-blocking nit: I would prefer to turn the comment into ginkgo step. Maybe ginkgo.By("await until the pending workload count is incremented as the workload is inadmissible, because the ResourceFlavors don't exist"). This way the comment is also logged, which can make debugging easier.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agreed. Actually I saw an existing comment and somehow decided to choose that style, but I would have chosen the ginkgo.By stanza otherwise. Let me know if you feel like it's worth I open a follow-up PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I didn't notice the PR was approved actually, and thought you would have time to apply the remark.
I'm ok either way, as you feel.
| gomega.Expect(k8sClient.Delete(ctx, workload)).To(gomega.Succeed()) | ||
| }) | ||
|
|
||
| // Pending workloads count is decrement as the deleted workload has been removed from the queue. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
non-blocking nit: same here - turn into ginkgo step
|
/cherry-pick release-0.5 |
|
@alculquicondor: new pull request created: #1686 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/test-infra repository. |
This fixes #1555 and also adds an integration test as suggested in #1555 (comment).
What type of PR is this?
/kind bug
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #1555
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?