This repository was archived by the owner on May 6, 2022. It is now read-only.
Instance never provisioned should not invoke broker#891
Merged
pmorie merged 1 commit intoJun 14, 2017
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
cncf-cla: yes
Contributor
Author
|
Right now, this is an e2e that demonstrates the problem, working on the fix. |
derekwaynecarr
force-pushed
the
fix-instance-delete
branch
2 times, most recently
from
68a5701 to
2d46035
Compare
derekwaynecarr
changed the title
Contributor
Author
|
ok, this should be ready for review. |
derekwaynecarr
force-pushed
the
fix-instance-delete
branch
3 times, most recently
from
8c5068f to
b03693d
Compare
derekwaynecarr
changed the title
Contributor
|
@derekwaynecarr rebase needed, thanks to you! |
pmorie
added
the
needs-rebase
Contributor
|
This is related to #908 @derekwaynecarr let me know when this is rebased, and I'll review. |
derekwaynecarr
force-pushed
the
fix-instance-delete
branch
from
b03693d to
0c37961
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
@arschles -- this is rebased. |
derekwaynecarr
force-pushed
the
fix-instance-delete
branch
2 times, most recently
from
c0ef021 to
e7dda8a
Compare
pmorie
removed
the
needs-rebase
Contributor
|
Looks like this is haunted by the same ghost or spectre as #917: |
Contributor
|
...the difference being that this didn't pass anywhere, so perhaps this is a legit failure |
arschles
reviewed
Jun 8, 2017
| v1alpha1.InstanceConditionReady, | ||
| v1alpha1.ConditionUnknown, | ||
| errorDeprovisionCalledReason, | ||
| "Deprovision call failed. "+s) |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just a note, nothing necessary to do for this PR - this is the code that we'll need to change in order to fix #908
arschles
suggested changes
Jun 8, 2017
Contributor
arschles
left a comment
arschles
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@derekwaynecarr looks good, I just have 2 changes - one nit and one in response code handling for the deprovision
| v1alpha1.InstanceConditionReady, | ||
| v1alpha1.ConditionFalse, | ||
| successDeprovisionReason, | ||
| successDeprovisionMessage, |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's not necessarily a successful deprovision in this case - only if http.StatusOK is returned. Otherwise, we should update to a failure message. I've done something similar for provision in #923
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func TestReconcileInstanceDeleteDoesNotInvokeBroker(t *testing.T) { |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you put a comment above this func to explain basically what it's testing? A sentence or 2 is enough
derekwaynecarr
force-pushed
the
fix-instance-delete
branch
from
e7dda8a to
237395e
Compare
derekwaynecarr
force-pushed
the
fix-instance-delete
branch
from
237395e to
cbca747
Compare
Contributor
Author
pmorie
reviewed
Jun 9, 2017
Contributor
pmorie
left a comment
pmorie
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Generally LGTM, a couple little nits and one questions
|
|
||
| // if the instance is marked for deletion, handle that first. | ||
| if instance.ObjectMeta.DeletionTimestamp != nil { | ||
| glog.V(4).Infof("Soft-deleting Instance %v/%v", instance.Namespace, instance.Name) |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure exactly what "soft-deleting" means here - can you clarify?
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I realize now that was in the existing code, FORGIVENESS PLEASE
| return err | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| glog.V(4).Infof("Adding/Updating Instance %v/%v", instance.Namespace, instance.Name) |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not feedback about your PR, just a signpost: this is where we will have to determine whether we're doing an add or an update.
|
|
||
| // reconcileInstance is the control-loop for reconciling Instances. | ||
| func (c *controller) reconcileInstance(instance *v1alpha1.Instance) error { | ||
|
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Signpost, not an issue with your PR: we will need to recalculate the checksums here eventually based on the total parameter payload that we would send to broker, which may include stuff that is not in the spec (ie, content of a secret that may have changed).
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // TestReconcileInstanceDeleteDoesNotInvokeBroker verfies that if an instance is created that is never |
|
|
||
| // TestReconcileInstanceDeleteDoesNotInvokeBroker verfies that if an instance is created that is never | ||
| // actually provisioned the instance is able to be deleted and is not blocked by any interaction with | ||
| // a broker (since its very likely that a broker never actually existed). |
arschles
approved these changes
Jun 13, 2017
Contributor
vaikas
pushed a commit
to vaikas/service-catalog
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 16, 2017
vaikas
pushed a commit
to vaikas/service-catalog
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 16, 2017
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
5 participants
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.
Fixes #878
If you create an Instance that references a ServiceClass that does not exist, you were never able to delete the Instance, as the controller error-ed out when the ServiceClass is not resolvable. In this scenario, the Instance is never able to be provisioned, so there is no need to gate deletion on ability to deprovision. For this PR, we do not invoke the broker upon deletion if an instance never actually provisioned.