Network ports resolution between operator and wls runtime #2256
Conversation
…port values, there is a discrepancy between what the wls core is using and what is returned from wlst.
…x doesn't encounter user may already use 7002 in other context
| if port == 0: | ||
| return 7001 | ||
|
|
||
| return server.getListenPort() |
| """ | ||
| if server_template_sslports.has_key(server.getName()): | ||
| configxml_ssl_port = server_template_sslports[server.getName()] | ||
| if configxml_ssl_port is None: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
what if configxml_ssl_port is not None but has the value of 7002?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Then configxml_ssl_port.getListenPort (actually it's a template) returns 7002, the server_template_listening_ports contains the actual value in the config.xml or None if no entry. Since we only care the case where there is no entry, I let the case to turn from the mbean.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In this case, since the server here is a template, WLS will treat the value as 7002, but mbean will likely return 8100.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks like you are correct, even if 7002 is actually in the config.xml, it still returns 8100. I will change it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Somehow this use case still does not work.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's a string comparison issue, fixed.
| """ | ||
| if server_template_listening_ports.has_key(server.getName()): | ||
| port = server_template_listening_ports[server.getName()] | ||
| if port is None: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What if port is not None but has the value of 7001?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Then server.getListenPort (actually it's a template) returns 7001, the server_template_listening_ports contains the actual value in the config.xml or None if no entry. Since we only care the case where there is no entry, I let the case to turn from the mbean.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In this case, since the server here is a template, WLS will treat the value as 7001, but mbean will likely return 7100.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Somehow this use case still does not work.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's a string comparison issue, fixed.
|
|
||
| The difference occurs when a user specifies 7002 in the model | ||
| or wlst offline for a server template when creating the domain, | ||
| which results in an empty entry in the config.xml. When subsequently |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
an empty entry -> an empty entry or a 7002 entry
|
|
||
| The difference occurs when a user specifies 7001 in the model | ||
| or wlst offline for a server template when creating the domain, | ||
| which results in an empty entry in the config.xml. When subsequently |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
an empty entry -> an empty entry or a 7001 entry
|
There are quite a number of failures in the integration test run in Jenkins: https://build.weblogick8s.org:8443/job/weblogic-kubernetes-operator-kind-new/4276/. Kicked off another run with the latest: https://build.weblogick8s.org:8443/job/weblogic-kubernetes-operator-kind-new/4278/. |
jshum2479
changed the title
| if listenPortProperty != firstListenPortProperty: | ||
| self.addError(errorMsg.substitute(cluster=self.name(cluster), server1=self.name(firstServer), property=clusterListenPortProperty, value1=str(firstListenPortProperty), server2=self.name(server), value2=str(firstListenPortProperty))) | ||
| return | ||
| # def validateClusterServersListenPortProperty(self, cluster, errorMsg, clusterListenPortProperty): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's remove commented out code unless there is a specific need, e.g. it acts as documentation. In this case, it looks like it's just leftover after the other changes.
| @@ -61,3 +61,5 @@ def trace(arg1,arg2='SENTINEL'): | |||
| traceInner('FINE',arg1) | |||
| else: | |||
| traceInner(arg1,arg2) | |||
|
|
|||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It looks like there is no substantive change to this file. If so, can you revert?
I have come up with this so far and I think it is close, I have some commented code due to refactoring and will remove it later.