[WIP] test framework to test concurrent controllers with linearization #1713
Conversation
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: tkashem 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 |
tkashem
force-pushed
the
concurrency-test
branch
from
13ddc2e
to
6f5bc99
Compare
tkashem
force-pushed
the
concurrency-test
branch
2 times, most recently
from
729d0d1
to
fdab34a
Compare
| @@ -183,7 +183,7 @@ func getValidityFromAnnotations(annotations map[string]string) (notBefore time.T | |||
|
|
|||
| // setSigningCertKeyPairSecret creates a new signing cert/key pair and sets them in the secret | |||
| func setSigningCertKeyPairSecret(signingCertKeyPairSecret *corev1.Secret, validity time.Duration) error { | |||
| signerName := fmt.Sprintf("%s_%s@%d", signingCertKeyPairSecret.Namespace, signingCertKeyPairSecret.Name, time.Now().Unix()) | |||
| signerName := fmt.Sprintf("%s_%s@%d", signingCertKeyPairSecret.Namespace, signingCertKeyPairSecret.Name, time.Now().UnixNano()) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That seems to be required for tests only, right? I don't think its suitable for production though, as it may grow too large?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes, for tests only, if we want to make sure the annotation changes as expected, otherwise we have to add sleep to the test
pkg/testing/linearizer/linearizer.go
Outdated
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| /* | ||
| A controller has this sequence: Get, Create, and Update |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Create here assumes "Delete and Create" on type change or its purely "Create" when the item doesn't exist?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is just an example to demonstrate how the framework generates the API call sequence, we could replace the Create/Delete with DoFoo/DoBar here
pkg/testing/linearizer/linearizer.go
Outdated
| d *dispatcher | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (a actor) Start() <-chan struct{} { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do we have "start" as separate action? Its not a kube-apiserver request, so we don't need it on the graph
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it's so that we can linearize the startup logic as well, the test here doesn't instrument the lister logic and a controller can start with a get from the lister.
A lister reacts to the state of the storage, so as long as we linearize all the API invocations we are good, this also means that the startup logic must me linearized as well.
tkashem
force-pushed
the
concurrency-test
branch
from
fdab34a
to
246c2d7
Compare
|
@tkashem: The following tests failed, say
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. 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. |
|
graphic visualization of an example run, where two controller instances
|
|
This may be useful in case we won't be able to avoid having a proper leader election for copies of the controller - or we find a resource managed by multiple controllers. |
|
Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity. Mark the issue as fresh by commenting If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /lifecycle stale |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
lifecycle/stale
openshift-merge-robot
added
the
needs-rebase
|
PR needs rebase. 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. |
No description provided.