Net 6575- Modify Gateways Cleanup Job to cleanup v2 resources #3317
Conversation
sarahalsmiller
added
pr/no-changelog
sarahalsmiller
requested review from
a team,
andrewstucki and
NiniOak
and removed request for
a team
sarahalsmiller
force-pushed
the
NET-6575-consul-k8s-Add-configmap-to-gateway-cleanup-job-to-allow-for-multiple-gatewayClasses-GatewayClassConfigs-and-also-a-MeshGateway
branch
from
80cedc2
to
0f65722
Compare
| _ = c.k8sClient.Delete(context.Background(), gatewayClass) | ||
|
|
||
| // make sure they're gone | ||
| if err := backoff.Retry(func() error { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why do we do this twice? any reason to not just do the entire delete in the retry block to begin with?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think since we're just ignoring the errors not having them in the retry block is an attempt to avoid spamming the same delete request while waiting for the finalizers to complete. But I just modified this code to make it into a loop.
|
|
||
| // find the gateway class | ||
| gatewayClass := &v2beta1.GatewayClass{} | ||
| //TODO is the correct name for the gatewayclass? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we are going to modify the configmap to have a gatewayclass in it, I will look for/make the story if you can add it as the TODO here
There was a problem hiding this comment.
//TODO: NET-6838
To pull the GatewayClassName from the Configmap
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you that makes sense. Will Add.
sarahalsmiller
force-pushed
the
NET-6575-consul-k8s-Add-configmap-to-gateway-cleanup-job-to-allow-for-multiple-gatewayClasses-GatewayClassConfigs-and-also-a-MeshGateway
branch
from
0f65722
to
d03de67
Compare
| @@ -8,6 +8,9 @@ import ( | |||
| "errors" | |||
| "flag" | |||
| "fmt" | |||
|
|
|||
sarahalsmiller
deleted the
NET-6575-consul-k8s-Add-configmap-to-gateway-cleanup-job-to-allow-for-multiple-gatewayClasses-GatewayClassConfigs-and-also-a-MeshGateway
branch
| "github.com/hashicorp/consul-k8s/control-plane/api/v1alpha1" | ||
| "github.com/hashicorp/consul-k8s/control-plane/subcommand" | ||
| "github.com/hashicorp/consul-k8s/control-plane/subcommand/flags" | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| const ( | ||
| gatewayConfigFilename = "/consul/config/config.yaml" | ||
| resourceConfigFilename = "/consul/config/resources.json" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should these live in another package? we use them in the resources job so I'm wondering if they belong in the gateways package as constants so we're not defining them twice across this and the resources job
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd be in favor of pulling them into a shared package.
| return 0 | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (c *Command) deleteV1GatewayClassAndGatewayClasConfig() error { |
* cleanup existing gatewayclasses and gatewayclassconfigs * add tests for v2 * fixed test to actually run against v2 resources, found issue where loop was failing out early * add TODO with jira ticket * cleanup debug line * delete extra newline
Changes proposed in this PR:
How I've tested this PR:
kubectl logs job/consul-consul-gateway-cleanup -n consulIn order to make sure the cleanup job didn't actually error.
How I expect reviewers to test this PR:
Checklist: