-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 499
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
tidb loadbalancer output is empty after terraform apply #1045
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
/run-e2e-in-kind |
/run-e2e-in-kind |
/run-e2e-in-kind |
can you paste the output of your manual tests? |
@@ -145,6 +145,7 @@ module "tidb-cluster" { | |||
kubeconfig_filename = var.kubeconfig_path | |||
base_values = file("${path.module}/values/default.yaml") | |||
wait_on_resource = [google_container_node_pool.tidb_pool, var.tidb_operator_id] | |||
service_ingress_key = "ip" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
tidb-cluster-release
is used in gcp, aliyun and aws. why this variable is only set for gcp?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's already set in aliyun and aws.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ah, I see. other platforms use its default value.
Done |
/run-e2e-in-kind |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
/run-e2e-in-kind |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
cherry pick to release-1.0 failed |
#1051) * tidb lb is empty after terraform apply * update scheduler image for ali and lb key for gcp * wait for monitoring lb
#1052) * tidb lb is empty after terraform apply * update scheduler image for ali and lb key for gcp * wait for monitoring lb
What problem does this PR solve?
fix #1043
What is changed and how does it work?
Wait for LB ready before computing output data
Check List
Tests
Outputs:
bastion_ip = [
"54.184.41.97",
]
default-cluster_monitor-dns = aeb62d185f56d11e9aeb70ae67ff0b7e-1988083749.us-west-2.elb.amazonaws.com
default-cluster_tidb-dns = aeb748195f56d11e9aeb70ae67ff0b7e-25bbd4125f96646b.elb.us-west-2.amazonaws.com
eks_endpoint = https://3A07AB19D3A05BD1BF7B170A276FE317.yl4.us-west-2.eks.amazonaws.com
eks_version = 1.12
kubeconfig_filename = credentials/kubeconfig_dan-eks
region = us-west-2
- GKE test
Outputs:
how_to_connect_to_default_cluster_tidb_from_bastion = mysql -h 172.31.252.29 -P 4000 -u root
how_to_set_reclaim_policy_of_pv_for_default_tidb_cluster_to_delete = kubectl --kubeconfig /tmp/tidb-operator/deploy/gcp/credentials/kubeconfig_gke-dan get pvc -n tidb-cluster -o jsonpath='{.items[*].spec.volumeName}'|fmt -1 | xargs -I {} kubectl --kubeconfig /tmp/tidb-operator/deploy/gcp/credentials/kubeconfig_gke-dan patch pv {} -p '{"spec":{"persistentVolumeReclaimPolicy":"Delete"}}'
how_to_ssh_to_bastion = gcloud --project smooth-tendril-207212 compute ssh gke-dan-tidb-bastion --zone us-west1-a
kubeconfig_file = /tmp/tidb-operator/deploy/gcp/credentials/kubeconfig_gke-dan
monitor_ilb_ip = 34.83.244.11
monitor_port = 3000
region = us-west1
tidb_version = v3.0.4
- ACK test
Outputs:
bastion_ip = 47.93.233.109
cluster_id = c0b39f3a352e445c98ac1ddddd5ad1643
kubeconfig_file = /tmp/tidb-operator/deploy/aliyun/credentials/kubeconfig
monitor_endpoint = 39.105.218.153:3000
region = cn-beijing
ssh_key_file = /tmp/tidb-operator/deploy/aliyun/credentials/my-cluster-key.pem
tidb_endpoint = 192.168.0.216:4000
tidb_version = v3.0.4
vpc_id = vpc-2zeluubd9sc8upj5qkrjb
Code changes
Side effects
Related changes
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: