Make vnets reconcile/delete async#1921
Conversation
0afe14e to
31e48d1
Compare
|
@CecileRobertMichon: GitHub didn't allow me to assign the following users: Jont828. Note that only kubernetes-sigs members, repo collaborators and people who have commented on this issue/PR can be assigned. Additionally, issues/PRs can only have 10 assignees at the same time. DetailsIn 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. |
5bb5f80 to
20a99d9
Compare
20a99d9 to
9514c8b
Compare
9514c8b to
f6df036
Compare
1e2b278 to
b1b5a8f
Compare
|
/retest |
b1b5a8f to
50883c7
Compare
e0129f3 to
a3bed43
Compare
5188237 to
df39987
Compare
|
/retest aks flake |
shysank
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
looks good overall with a couple of nits and a clarification on vnet peerings
| CIDRs: s.Vnet().CIDRBlocks, | ||
| func (s *ClusterScope) VNetSpec() azure.ResourceSpecGetter { | ||
| return &virtualnetworks.VNetSpec{ | ||
| ResourceGroup: s.Vnet().ResourceGroup, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see that we have not copied Peerings from the old spec. Is this a conscious decision? we were setting it previously here
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes, what was happening before was that we were doing a full deep copy into the vnet stored in AzureCluster.Spec which meant we had to include every single field that had been set before otherwise we would risk overwriting it. This is not good because if a new feature gets added like vnet peerings there could be a bug where the vnet write erases the user configuration (and in fact we did run into that issue during vnet peering implementation). This is hopefully simplifying the code while keeping it functionally equivalent. We only set the vnet, ID, tags and cidrs from the existing vnet while keeping the rest of the VnetSpec the same.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh okay, makes sense. Thanks for the explanation!
Co-Authored-By: Shyam Sankaran <sankarans@vmware.com>
427f3ce to
021814e
Compare
devigned
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
lgtm outside of the failure in e2e when ensuring the cluster is deleted.
/retest |
|
/lgtm |
|
AKS test is broken on main (see https://kubernetes.slack.com/archives/CEX9HENG7/p1643648764688369) all other tests passed /cc @devigned |
|
/retest exp test fixed in #2025 |
|
/retest AKS timesync flake |
|
@CecileRobertMichon: The following test failed, say
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR. DetailsInstructions 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. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
|
/lgtm |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: shysank The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
What type of PR is this?
/kind feature
/kind cleanup
What this PR does / why we need it: Follow up on #1610 and implementation of #1541 for virtual networks.
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 #
Special notes for your reviewer: This PR replaces #1684
Please confirm that if this PR changes any image versions, then that's the sole change this PR makes.
TODOs:
Release note: