✨ Add support to specify PlacementGroupPartition of placement group #4883

chiragkyal · 2024-03-19T07:47:14Z

What type of PR is this?
/kind feature

What this PR does / why we need it:

Adds support for users to specify the partition number (PlacementGroupPartition) of a placement group, identified by PlacementGroupName while creating instances.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):
Fixes #4870

Special notes for your reviewer:

Checklist:

Release note:

Add support to specify PlacementGroupPartition of placement group in instances.

linux-foundation-easycla · 2024-03-19T07:47:20Z

The committers listed above are authorized under a signed CLA.

✅ login: chiragkyal / name: Chirag Kyal (7e79b8b)

k8s-ci-robot · 2024-03-19T07:47:23Z

Welcome @chiragkyal!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api-provider-aws 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api-provider-aws has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

k8s-ci-robot · 2024-03-19T07:47:23Z

Hi @chiragkyal. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

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.

api/v1beta2/types.go

Ankitasw · 2024-03-27T05:47:54Z

api/v1beta1/awscluster_conversion.go

@@ -56,6 +56,7 @@ func (src *AWSCluster) ConvertTo(dstRaw conversion.Hub) error {
 	if restored.Status.Bastion != nil {
 		dst.Status.Bastion.InstanceMetadataOptions = restored.Status.Bastion.InstanceMetadataOptions
 		dst.Status.Bastion.PlacementGroupName = restored.Status.Bastion.PlacementGroupName
+		dst.Status.Bastion.PlacementGroupPartition = restored.Status.Bastion.PlacementGroupPartition


No need to add this new filed in v1beta1 as we would be going to deprecate that soon

Okay, that makes sense. I'm wondering if CI tests would complain if I remove the conversion. If that's not the case, then we can remove it.

The test failed after I removed the conversion. Can you please suggest what should be the correct approach here?

--- FAIL: TestFuzzyConversion (59.20s) --- FAIL: TestFuzzyConversion/for_AWSCluster (18.80s) --- PASS: TestFuzzyConversion/for_AWSCluster/spoke-hub-spoke (18.79s) --- FAIL: TestFuzzyConversion/for_AWSCluster/hub-spoke-hub (0.01s) --- FAIL: TestFuzzyConversion/for_AWSMachine (17.20s)

Couldn't we just leave this generated conversion in place if it is causing issues? I guess if we deprecate v1beta1, it won't matter either way

I think that would be better, since it's causing the CI tests failure. I've added back the conversion.

chiragkyal · 2024-03-27T12:15:15Z

/assign @Ankitasw

nrb · 2024-04-03T15:43:18Z

/lgtm

damdo · 2024-04-03T19:45:31Z

/test pull-cluster-api-provider-aws-e2e
/test pull-cluster-api-provider-aws-e2e-eks

chiragkyal · 2024-04-04T05:22:50Z

/test pull-cluster-api-provider-aws-e2e

damdo · 2024-04-04T09:39:52Z

/test pull-cluster-api-provider-aws-e2e

chiragkyal · 2024-04-04T09:49:47Z

Is this related to the PR changes? I'm not quite sure.

Summarizing 1 Failure:
  [FAIL] [unmanaged] [Cluster API Framework] Clusterctl Upgrade Spec [from latest v1beta1 release to v1beta2] [AfterEach] Should create a management cluster and then upgrade all the providers
  /home/prow/go/pkg/mod/sigs.k8s.io/cluster-api/[email protected]/framework/cluster_helpers.go:176

damdo · 2024-04-04T10:31:42Z

Looks like a flake timeout to me, hence the retest. Let's see.

chiragkyal · 2024-04-04T12:02:40Z

All green 🎉
/cc @vincepri @Ankitasw

k8s-ci-robot · 2024-04-08T08:37:49Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

Approval requirements bypassed by manually added approval.

This pull-request has been approved by:

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:

OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

JoelSpeed · 2024-06-10T13:53:31Z

api/v1beta2/awsmachine_types.go

+	// +kubebuilder:validation:Minimum:=1
+	// +kubebuilder:validation:Maximum:=7
+	// +optional
+	PlacementGroupPartition int64 `json:"placementGroupPartition,omitempty"`


Probably should have been int32

k8s-ci-robot added needs-priority cncf-cla: no Indicates the PR's author has not signed the CNCF CLA. labels Mar 19, 2024

k8s-ci-robot requested review from Ankitasw and nrb March 19, 2024 07:47

Ankitasw added ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. and removed needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Mar 22, 2024

chiragkyal marked this pull request as ready for review March 25, 2024 10:57

k8s-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Mar 25, 2024

k8s-ci-robot requested review from fiunchinho and vincepri March 25, 2024 10:57

vincepri reviewed Mar 25, 2024

View reviewed changes

api/v1beta2/types.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

chiragkyal force-pushed the feature/add-partition-number branch from 334c2f9 to 2e6bfb3 Compare March 25, 2024 15:02

chiragkyal changed the title ~~✨ Add support to specify PartitionNumber of placement group~~ ✨ Add support to specify PlacementGroupPartition of placement group Mar 25, 2024

chiragkyal requested a review from vincepri March 25, 2024 15:13

Ankitasw reviewed Mar 27, 2024

View reviewed changes

chiragkyal requested a review from Ankitasw March 27, 2024 12:11

k8s-ci-robot assigned Ankitasw Mar 27, 2024

✨ Add support to specify PlacementGroupPartition of placement group

7e79b8b

chiragkyal force-pushed the feature/add-partition-number branch from 6e051c3 to 7e79b8b Compare March 28, 2024 17:45

chiragkyal requested a review from damdo March 28, 2024 17:48

k8s-ci-robot assigned nrb Apr 3, 2024

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Apr 3, 2024

Ankitasw added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Apr 8, 2024

k8s-ci-robot merged commit 4b3f416 into kubernetes-sigs:main Apr 8, 2024
21 checks passed

chiragkyal deleted the feature/add-partition-number branch April 8, 2024 10:37

chiragkyal mentioned this pull request Apr 8, 2024

Support AWS Placement Group Partition Number #4870

Closed

chiragkyal mentioned this pull request Jun 10, 2024

CFE-1063: Add PlacementGroupPartition in AWSMachineProviderConfig openshift/api#1897

Merged

JoelSpeed reviewed Jun 10, 2024

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

✨ Add support to specify PlacementGroupPartition of placement group #4883

✨ Add support to specify PlacementGroupPartition of placement group #4883

chiragkyal commented Mar 19, 2024 •

edited

Loading

linux-foundation-easycla bot commented Mar 19, 2024 •

edited

Loading

k8s-ci-robot commented Mar 19, 2024

k8s-ci-robot commented Mar 19, 2024

Ankitasw Mar 27, 2024

chiragkyal Mar 27, 2024

chiragkyal Mar 27, 2024

damdo Mar 28, 2024

chiragkyal Mar 28, 2024

chiragkyal commented Mar 27, 2024

nrb commented Apr 3, 2024

damdo commented Apr 3, 2024

chiragkyal commented Apr 4, 2024

damdo commented Apr 4, 2024

chiragkyal commented Apr 4, 2024

damdo commented Apr 4, 2024

chiragkyal commented Apr 4, 2024

k8s-ci-robot commented Apr 8, 2024

JoelSpeed Jun 10, 2024

✨ Add support to specify PlacementGroupPartition of placement group #4883

✨ Add support to specify PlacementGroupPartition of placement group #4883

Conversation

chiragkyal commented Mar 19, 2024 • edited Loading

linux-foundation-easycla bot commented Mar 19, 2024 • edited Loading

k8s-ci-robot commented Mar 19, 2024

k8s-ci-robot commented Mar 19, 2024

Ankitasw Mar 27, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

chiragkyal Mar 27, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

chiragkyal Mar 27, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

damdo Mar 28, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

chiragkyal Mar 28, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

chiragkyal commented Mar 27, 2024

nrb commented Apr 3, 2024

damdo commented Apr 3, 2024

chiragkyal commented Apr 4, 2024

damdo commented Apr 4, 2024

chiragkyal commented Apr 4, 2024

damdo commented Apr 4, 2024

chiragkyal commented Apr 4, 2024

k8s-ci-robot commented Apr 8, 2024

JoelSpeed Jun 10, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

chiragkyal commented Mar 19, 2024 •

edited

Loading

linux-foundation-easycla bot commented Mar 19, 2024 •

edited

Loading