remove deprecated server port #1339
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Great find!! Amazing that we actually caught this in an integration test. Can we also get this cherrypicked in v1.92? |
AjayTripathy
approved these changes
Apr 1, 2022
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What does this PR change?
This PR removes the deprecated 9001 port used for the cost-analyzer-server from the service template. This port will cause service failures on EKS because when you create a service with the type LoadBalancer, it appears to make a health check for
.spec.ports[0]. Because this port returned an empty response, the LoadBalancer would remain stuck in anOutOfServicestate.How does this PR impact users? (This is the kind of thing that goes in release notes!)
Fixed bug where cost-analyzer-service health checks could fail
How was this PR tested?
I ran an upgrade against a cluster in EKS to verify that this would allow the LoadBalancer to enter an
InServicestate and upgraded a cluster in GKE to confirm that this wouldn't cause issues in another environment.Have you made an update to documentation?
kubecost/docs#212