OCPBUGS-23435: workloadctl: account for terminating pods #1732
Conversation
openshift-ci-robot
added
jira/severity-moderate
|
@stlaz: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-23435, which is invalid:
Comment The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker. 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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: stlaz 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 |
|
/hold |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
do-not-merge/hold
|
/hold cancel |
openshift-ci
bot
removed
the
do-not-merge/hold
Don't set Progressing=False if some pods from the previous generation are still running.
|
@stlaz: all tests passed! 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. |
| } else if tooManyMatchingPods { | ||
| deploymentProgressingCondition.Status = operatorv1.ConditionTrue | ||
| deploymentProgressingCondition.Reason = "PreviousGenPodsPresent" | ||
| deploymentProgressingCondition.Message = fmt.Sprintf("deployment/%s.%s: %d pod(s) from the previous generation are still present", workload.Name, c.targetNamespace, len(matchingPods)-int(desiredReplicas)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This may not always be correct. There may be extra pods for different reasons. E.g. if they are disrupted/evicted for some reason, the deployment controller will create extra pods to account for that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How would you word it, then? Just too many pods?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In k8s, this is considered a complete deployment, so it depends on what you want to convey. There can also be extra pods during a rollout with maxSurge, but in that case the pods will have different revisions/hashes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I suppose the message should be about pods of a different revision still existing. Would you be able to think of any other case where extra pods might cause unexpected behavior?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Apart from the terminating pods which are a subject of this bug, no.
I guess, there might be some exotic cases where the pods can be owned by another controller, but that can be safely ignored here.
| // contribute to unexpected behavior if we report Progressing=False. | ||
| // The case of too many pods might occur for example if `TerminationGracePeriodSeconds` | ||
| // is set. | ||
| tooManyMatchingPods := int32(len(matchingPods)) > desiredReplicas |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Safer would be to test if all the pods have the same hash (pod-template-hash label). This would work well in combination with workloadIsBeingUpdated.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is pod-template-hash set on 100% of our deployments?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the pod spec can be the same, only the underlying config changed. Would that still work?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The deployment rollout has to be triggered somehow and it seems that you are triggering it with the resource revisions of the dependencies. So yes it should work.
Don't set Progressing=False if some pods from the previous generation are still running.
/assign @openshift/openshift-team-auth
/cc @deads2k