-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.8k
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
TEP-0114: Clarify the Behavior of Custom Task Retries #5393
Conversation
@XinruZhang: The label(s) 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. |
/assign @jerop |
/release-note-none |
@XinruZhang: The label(s) 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. |
/kind documentation |
a62a6af
to
44e66d4
Compare
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
I don't think it's true that |
Although I guess if we've been documenting that it applies to all retries people have already been implementing it in this way? FYI @jerop there's some inconsistency here between taskruns and runs |
44e66d4
to
c317c9a
Compare
/unhold Thanks @lbernick for pointing it out! Updated the doc. To reflect what we discussed, basically, the behavior of Run should be aligned with PipelineTask -- timeout is for each retries not the sum of all retries. |
Thanks @XinruZhang for the updates! my only concern is that even though this is a documentation change, it's sort of backwards incompatible because it reflects the contract we expect run controllers to implement (defined in TEP-0069). I think it's worth getting some more opinions on whether we'd prefer to keep the run reconciler contract as is, or whether we'd prefer consistency between TaskRuns and Runs. In the meantime, it's worth documenting that the Pipeline Task timeout is applied independently to each retry of a TaskRun. |
I think we should at least mark this as a breaking change with an action-required - probably worth sending to the mailing lists as well if we decide to go ahead |
Thanks @lbernick, that's a great concern. Thanks @dibyom for your input. What I can think of we need to do is: creating an issue to
Do you think this is a good idea? BTW, @dibyom I'm wondering what needs to be done for breaking change? Adding action-required notice in release notes? or anything else? |
we could probably just discuss here-- @tektoncd/core-maintainers |
Though I do think it would be better if we keep the behaviors of Runs & TaskRuns aligned, then the action item would be what's the process of making breaking changes to Custom Task Run. |
Opened a TEP (TEP-0121 tektoncd/community#816) to fully discuss the behavior of retries, we can continue our discussions there. |
As discussed in the Tekton API Working Group today, we'd like to modify the development guidance of Custom Task, suggesting users to set timeout for each retry attempt. |
Prior to this commit, it is not clear enough how retries works when the custom task run is timeout. This commit refines the developer guide for custom controllers supporting `retries` to clarify it.
c317c9a
to
89ca51e
Compare
/hold this PR until TEP-0121 is implemented. |
I'm closing this PR because we've made changes to |
Changes
Prior to this PR, it is not clear enough how retries works when
the custom task run is timeout. This PR refines the developer
guide for custom controllers supporting
retries
to clarify it./kind doc
Submitter Checklist
As the author of this PR, please check off the items in this checklist:
functionality, content, code)
/kind <type>
. Valid types are bug, cleanup, design, documentation, feature, flake, misc, question, tepRelease Notes