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

Remove init flow #135

Merged

Conversation

mrkisaolamb
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Jan 18, 2024

Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request.
If you want CI signal for your change, please convert it to an actual PR.
You can still manually trigger a test run with /test all

@mrkisaolamb
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

@mrkisaolamb mrkisaolamb force-pushed the remove-init-flow branch 4 times, most recently from 67025b3 to 69401dc Compare January 30, 2024 15:50
Copy link
Collaborator

@SeanMooney SeanMooney left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@mrkisaolamb mrkisaolamb force-pushed the remove-init-flow branch 3 times, most recently from d924516 to 8076033 Compare January 31, 2024 10:31
Comment on lines 455 to 453
if (err != nil || result != ctrl.Result{}) {
// We can ignore RequeueAfter as we are watching the Service resource
// but we have to return while waiting for the service to be exposed
return ctrl.Result{}, err
}
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The comment here is not reflecting the reality. I think you are waiting for the db sync to finish before doing the deployment.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

But also I think the whole if is pointless as if there is an error then we returning at L450, if there is a requeue request from the db sync then we are returning at L452. So we will arrive here with an error or a requeue.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done, Thanks!

@@ -2,25 +2,25 @@
"command": "/usr/sbin/httpd -DFOREGROUND",
"config_files": [
{
"source": "/var/lib/config-data/merged/placement.conf",
"source": "/var/lib/config-data/placement.conf",
"dest": "/etc/placement/placement.conf",
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Eventually we want to use /etc/placement/placement.conf.d/ but that can be done separately. Also at that point we want to put an empty file to /etc/placement/placement.conf as the container image put the generated sample config file there.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ack, should I create new issue or this will be handle as a part of different feature/issue?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

please either create an issue or a quick follow up PR

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

done in 826dafd

@mrkisaolamb mrkisaolamb force-pushed the remove-init-flow branch 2 times, most recently from 41540b8 to 33e435c Compare February 1, 2024 13:47
@SeanMooney
Copy link
Collaborator

/test placement-operator-build-deploy-kuttl

i think the test is racy and its not waiting long enough for it to scale

we may need to merge #125 first or modify how kuttl is run

placement_kuttl_run https://github.com/openstack-k8s-operators/install_yamls/blob/60c1fb7828a91545e52b5c799162bcc21c3dd5ee/Makefile#L1586-L1588

its currently looking for kuttl config in repo in https://github.com/openstack-k8s-operators/placement-operator/blob/main/kuttl-test.yaml

so we can adjust some of the config that way

nova is using a timeout of 300 seconds per test

https://github.com/openstack-k8s-operators/nova-operator/blob/main/test/kuttl/test-suites/default/config.yaml#L7

we are using 180 in placement so we could start by bumping to 300 and see if that is enough to stableise the test

@SeanMooney SeanMooney dismissed their stale review February 1, 2024 17:46

the secuirty context thing is fixed so i think if we dont land on a slow node this will pass

@mrkisaolamb
Copy link
Contributor Author

/test placement-operator-build-deploy-kuttl

i think the test is racy and its not waiting long enough for it to scale

we may need to merge #125 first or modify how kuttl is run

placement_kuttl_run https://github.com/openstack-k8s-operators/install_yamls/blob/60c1fb7828a91545e52b5c799162bcc21c3dd5ee/Makefile#L1586-L1588

its currently looking for kuttl config in repo in https://github.com/openstack-k8s-operators/placement-operator/blob/main/kuttl-test.yaml

so we can adjust some of the config that way

nova is using a timeout of 300 seconds per test

https://github.com/openstack-k8s-operators/nova-operator/blob/main/test/kuttl/test-suites/default/config.yaml#L7

we are using 180 in placement so we could start by bumping to 300 and see if that is enough to stableise the test

Thanks! I bumped it to 300 because this failed already few times on same issue that db sync didn't finished

@mrkisaolamb
Copy link
Contributor Author

kuttl tests catch realll issue with volumes for db-sync so this is not related to timeout

@mrkisaolamb mrkisaolamb force-pushed the remove-init-flow branch 3 times, most recently from bb6f196 to 75540e2 Compare February 2, 2024 15:53
@mrkisaolamb
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

{
Name: "config-data-merged",
Name: "config-data",
MountPath: "/var/lib/config-data/merged",
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lets do a separate follow up where the merged postfix is removed from the mount path. That naming is the from the past where the init container merged configuration.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

done

annotations:
openshift.io/scc: anyuid
labels:
service: placement
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why we dropped the Pod assert? I guess we still have the same placement api pod running

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

done

@mrkisaolamb mrkisaolamb linked an issue Feb 6, 2024 that may be closed by this pull request
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Feb 6, 2024

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: gibizer, mrkisaolamb

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 [gibizer,mrkisaolamb]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@openshift-merge-bot openshift-merge-bot bot merged commit 4285571 into openstack-k8s-operators:main Feb 6, 2024
6 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Align service config generation
4 participants