🐛 Fix sub-ports not deleted with trunks

[mquhuy]

What this PR does / why we need it:
Sometimes, when a trunk is associated with sub ports, deletion of the trunk will not lead to deletion of the subports, which is not expected. This PR adds the check to ensure the deletion of the subports in such cases.

Special notes for your reviewer:

1. Please confirm that if this PR changes any image versions, then that's the sole change this PR makes.

TODOs:

• squashed commits
• if necessary:
  • includes documentation
  • adds unit tests

/hold

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @mquhuy. 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.

Details

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-sigs/prow repository.

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for kubernetes-sigs-cluster-api-openstack ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	dabce29
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/kubernetes-sigs-cluster-api-openstack/deploys/664ef05dec2d4d0009e3c25e
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-2081--kubernetes-sigs-cluster-api-openstack.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[lentzi90]

/ok-to-test

[lentzi90]

Thanks for this, it looks pretty good!
Please make lint-update to fix the linting error.

[mquhuy]

/retest

[mquhuy]

/cc @mdbooth

[mdbooth]

Thanks, looks good. Just a request to move some code for consistency.

[mquhuy]

Thank you @mdbooth! I have to go now, but I'll make the change asap tomorrow.

[mdbooth]

I'm happy to merge this, but I recommend considering how best to test it. Some unit tests covering error cases might be one way. I think (but I haven't checked) we create a port with a trunk in one of the e2e tests. Perhaps we could also add a subport to it, which would cause the test to fail if it isn't cleaned up properly. Just some ideas.

[mdbooth]

We really need a metrics strategy. I'd probably leave this out, tbh, but in absence of any related policy I'm not going to object.

[lentzi90]

It looks to me like this is a duplicate. We are already getting the metrics in networking.go above.
Can you remove this @mquhuy ?

[mquhuy]

Yes, sure. Coming up

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: mdbooth

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [mdbooth]

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

[lentzi90]

This looks good, except the duplicate metrics

[lentzi90]

It looks to me like this is a duplicate. We are already getting the metrics in networking.go above.
Can you remove this @mquhuy ?

[mquhuy]

I'm happy to merge this, but I recommend considering how best to test it. Some unit tests covering error cases might be one way. I think (but I haven't checked) we create a port with a trunk in one of the e2e tests. Perhaps we could also add a subport to it, which would cause the test to fail if it isn't cleaned up properly. Just some ideas.

Thank you. I'm wondering if this is the one you were thinking of? https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api-provider-openstack/blob/main/pkg/cloud/services/networking/port_test.go#L309

I'm not sure if I understand it correctly, but it seems to me the test is only checking if the port could be created. Do you think we should also test if it can be cleaned? If it turned out to be in a bigger scope, I'd be happy to do it in another PR.

[lentzi90]

/lgtm

[mquhuy]

/unhold

[mdbooth]

I'm happy to merge this, but I recommend considering how best to test it. Some unit tests covering error cases might be one way. I think (but I haven't checked) we create a port with a trunk in one of the e2e tests. Perhaps we could also add a subport to it, which would cause the test to fail if it isn't cleaned up properly. Just some ideas.

Thank you. I'm wondering if this is the one you were thinking of? https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api-provider-openstack/blob/main/pkg/cloud/services/networking/port_test.go#L309

I'm not sure if I understand it correctly, but it seems to me the test is only checking if the port could be created. Do you think we should also test if it can be cleaned? If it turned out to be in a bigger scope, I'd be happy to do it in another PR.

Looks like that's only testing port creation. You might want a new unit test for the delete flow. But something similar to that.

For the e2e test I was thinking of this:

cluster-api-provider-openstack/test/e2e/suites/e2e/e2e_test.go

Lines 447 to 455 in 046d6b7

	// assert trunked port is created.
	Eventually(func() int {
	plist, err = shared.DumpOpenStackPorts(e2eCtx, ports.ListOpts{Description: "trunked", Tags: testTag})
	Expect(err).To(BeNil())
	return len(plist)
	}, e2eCtx.E2EConfig.GetIntervals(specName, "wait-worker-nodes")...).Should(Equal(1))
	port = plist[0]
	Expect(port.Description).To(Equal("trunked"))
	Expect(port.Tags).To(ContainElement(testTag))

If we updated the test to add a subport to that trunk we'd presumably get an error if the test didn't clean it up properly.

[mquhuy]

/cherrypick release-0.9
/cherrypick release-0.10

[k8s-infra-cherrypick-robot]

@mquhuy: only kubernetes-sigs org members may request cherry picks. If you are already part of the org, make sure to change your membership to public. Otherwise you can still do the cherry-pick manually.

Details

In response to this:

/cherrypick release-0.9
/cherrypick release-0.10

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-sigs/prow repository.