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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

v1alpha3: Move some GCE-specific fields to CloudProvider.GCE #14813

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Dec 20, 2022
Merged

v1alpha3: Move some GCE-specific fields to CloudProvider.GCE #14813

merged 2 commits into from
Dec 20, 2022

Conversation

johngmyers
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Dec 19, 2022
@johngmyers johngmyers changed the title v1alpha3: Move some GCE-specific to CloudProvider.GCE v1alpha3: Move some GCE-specific fields to CloudProvider.GCE Dec 19, 2022
@johngmyers
Copy link
Member Author

/retest

justinsb
justinsb reviewed Dec 19, 2022
View reviewed changes
pkg/model/gcemodel/context.go
// This is a legacy setting because the nodes & control-plane run under the same serviceaccount
klog.Warningf("using legacy spec.cloudConfig.gceServiceAccount=%q setting", c.Cluster.Spec.CloudConfig.GCEServiceAccount)
klog.Warningf("using legacy spec.cloudProvider.gce.serviceAccount=%q setting", c.Cluster.Spec.CloudProvider.GCE.ServiceAccount)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nit: until we make v1alpha3 the default, we probably should keep the v1alpha2 names? I recognize this is a pain though...

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We're maintaining a mapping table in cluster_spec.md. If we don't adjust as we go, we're bound to miss a few when we change the default.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We could create a helper function that can translate between API versions (in future), even if we don't do the mapping at first... But maybe that's good for another PR

...oogle_compute_instance_template_master-us-test1-a-ha-gce-example-com_metadata_startup-script
@@ -123,8 +123,6 @@ ensure-install-dir

cat > conf/cluster_spec.yaml << '__EOF_CLUSTER_SPEC'
cloudConfig:
gcpPDCSIDriver:
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We might need to embed the GCE config so we know when to restart instances?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The only thing in there is an "enabled" flag. If there were config, it would go into the addon manifest, which I don't think needs an instance restart to be applied. If we add something that requires nodeup to change its build-out behavior, I'd hope we add that setting to nodeup.Config.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The GCE service account goes into the ASGs and the bucket ACLs. I would think the former would cause instances to be marked for rolling update.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

OK - sgtm! Merge and iterate :-)

@justinsb
Copy link
Member

One question about whether we need to output the GCE config to ensure we know when to rolling-update instances...

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. labels Dec 19, 2022
@hakman
Copy link
Member

hakman commented Dec 19, 2022

/lgtm cancel

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Dec 19, 2022
@justinsb
Copy link
Member

/approve
/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Dec 20, 2022
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: hakman, justinsb

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:

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

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit 728fbab into kubernetes:master Dec 20, 2022
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added this to the v1.26 milestone Dec 20, 2022
@johngmyers johngmyers deleted the gcp-csi branch December 20, 2022 14:55
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@justinsb justinsb justinsb left review comments

@hakman hakman hakman approved these changes

@zetaab zetaab Awaiting requested review from zetaab

Assignees

@justinsb justinsb

@hakman hakman

Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. area/addons area/api area/documentation area/provider/gcp Issues or PRs related to gcp provider cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
v1.26
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@johngmyers @justinsb @hakman @k8s-ci-robot