Bug 2022265: Rebase v1.21.6 #1060
Conversation
This is necessary because the current approach, directly connecting to the insecure port, no longer works with Kubernetes 1.22 because the insecure port is disabled in Kubernetes 1.22. In the upgrade tests the e2e.test binary from Kubernetes 1.21 is run against Kubernetes 1.22. This commit contains almost all changes related to metrics grabbing: 34f4959 replace e2e WaitForPodsReady by WaitTimeoutForPodReadyInNamespace 9103b71 Fetch metrics from controller manager & scheduler no run once f298a65 e2e metrics: remove redundant checks around metrics tests a4c7e91 e2e metrics: skip tests when metrics grabbing is disabled 1d3420c e2e metrics: check whether debug handlers are available 5e9076d e2e: grab controller and scheduler metrics via port forwarding c496b1d e2e: waiting for scheduler pod to expose metrics once c4c2574 refactor(e2e): grab metrics from controller-manager via nginx Excluded was one commit which added a new test: 564e531 Add Snapshot Controller e2e metric tests Because of the large number of commits and the conflicts caused by that undesired commit, "git cherry-pick" was not used. Instead, "git diff" and "git log -p" for relevant files were used to generate patches that applied a bit more cleanly. Fixes: kubernetes#103822
Due to a cut-and-paste error in the original implementation in Kubernetes 1.19, support for generic ephemeral inline volumes in the PVC protection controller was incorrectly tied to the "storage object in use" feature gate.
Instead of a plain `Mutex`, use an `RWMutex` so that the common operations can proceed in parallel.
…ick-of-#104833-upstream-release-1.21 Automated cherry pick of kubernetes#104833 (1.21): Refine locking in API Priority and Fairness config controller
…k-of-#100125-upstream-release-1.21 Automated cherry pick of kubernetes#100125: 'New' Event namespace validate failed
Some tests are checking the network connectivity using gomega.Consistently, which will fail if any of the checks fails. This could lead to flakyness in some scenarios in which kube-proxy was supposed to apply Policies for Kubernetes services. We can instead wait for the network connectivity to work first using gomega.Eventually, after which we can check the consistency.
v1.21: Fix test flake in old svc registry
…rry-pick-of-#104634-upstream-release-1.21 Automated cherry pick of kubernetes#104634: storege e2etest: Delete restored PVC/Pod in snapshottable
…ck-of-#104969-upstream-release-1.21 Automated cherry pick of kubernetes#104969: Propagate conversion errors
…y-pick-of-#101047-upstream-release-1.21 Automated cherry pick of kubernetes#101047: Only use dualstack if the node and config supports it
Otherwise, nodeNameToPodList[nodeName] list will have all its references identical (corresponding to the control variable reference). Thus, making all the pods in the list identical.
Signed-off-by: Davanum Srinivas <davanum@gmail.com>
The issue on both tests is that before the refactor we had a method that was creating the `StorageClass` manifest only, this manifest was used later to be created by `TestBindingWaitForFirstConsumerMultiPVC`, after the refactor we're ensuring that the `StorageClass` exists as a resource before calling `TestBindingWaitForFirstConsumerMultiPVC` however this method is still attempting to create it, that's the reason behind the error: `resourceVersion should not be set on objects to be created This issue wasn't caught before because `TestBindingWaitForFirstConsumerMultiPVC` is creating the StorageClass without the common utility function, the solution is to remove the snippet that attempts to create the StorageClass againo
|
/test e2e-aws |
openshift-ci
bot
added
backports/validated-commits
|
/label backport-risk-assessed |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
backport-risk-assessed
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: soltysh, tjungblu 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 |
|
@soltysh: Overrode contexts on behalf of soltysh: ci/prow/verify-commits 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 kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
approved
|
/retest-required Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
1 similar comment
|
/retest-required Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/bugzilla refresh Recalculating validity in case the underlying Bugzilla bug has changed. |
|
@openshift-bot: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 2022265, which is invalid:
Comment 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 kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
|
/label cherry-pick-approved |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
cherry-pick-approved
|
#1048 merged so manually setting valid-bug label |
openshift-ci
bot
added
bugzilla/valid-bug
|
@tjungblu: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged: Bugzilla bug 2022265 has been moved to the MODIFIED state. 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 kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
CHANGELOG https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/master/CHANGELOG/CHANGELOG-1.21.md#v1216