Skip to content

Conversation

@cgwalters
Copy link
Member

This way it's easy to see at a glance where a given
config came from. Now looks like:

$ oc get machineconfig
NAME                                      AGE
00-master                                 6h
00-worker                                 6h
...
master-e92af7e0bdc0591dc11405aeabb57ccd   1m
worker-50748faa54f9cc70af13c8686c2c7a28   1m

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. label Dec 6, 2018
@ashcrow
Copy link
Member

ashcrow commented Dec 7, 2018

/retest

Copy link
Member

@ashcrow ashcrow left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I like it!

@ashcrow
Copy link
Member

ashcrow commented Dec 7, 2018

/cc @abhinavdahiya

@cgwalters
Copy link
Member Author

Though I imagine there's some better code to do this type of thing somewhere; e.g. how deployments turn into pods prefixed with a random ID etc. I'm a kube-code novice so pointers appreciated if someone has them.

(Also, related to that, is there a reason we use a checksum rather than just a short "unique-enough ID"?)

@abhinavdahiya
Copy link
Contributor

Though I imagine there's some better code to do this type of thing somewhere; e.g. how deployments turn into pods prefixed with a random ID etc. I'm a kube-code novice so pointers appreciated if someone has them.

(Also, related to that, is there a reason we use a checksum rather than just a short "unique-enough ID"?)

using checksums allows MCC to manage generated machine configs without storing that hash somewhere in annotations like deployment does for pods.

@cgwalters
Copy link
Member Author

using checksums allows MCC to manage generated machine configs without storing that hash somewhere in annotations like deployment does for pods.

I don't understand this; what does "manage" here mean? As best I can tell nothing e.g. re-hashes a config again to compare it versus something else.

It's just about being unique right?

This way it's easy to see at a glance where a given
config came from.  Now looks like:

```
$ oc get machineconfig
NAME                                      AGE
00-master                                 6h
00-worker                                 6h
...
master-e92af7e0bdc0591dc11405aeabb57ccd   1m
worker-50748faa54f9cc70af13c8686c2c7a28   1m
```
@cgwalters cgwalters force-pushed the operator-prefix-configs branch from a4a0054 to 58d6e1b Compare December 7, 2018 19:45
@abhinavdahiya
Copy link
Contributor

using checksums allows MCC to manage generated machine configs without storing that hash somewhere in annotations like deployment does for pods.

I don't understand this; what does "manage" here mean? As best I can tell nothing e.g. re-hashes a config again to compare it versus something else.

It's just about being unique right?
No

https://github.com/openshift/machine-config-operator/blob/master/pkg/controller/render/render_controller.go#L423-L434

@cgwalters
Copy link
Member Author

OK, understood now. Thanks!

One thing I'd note here is this is a "schema change"; it will cause new configs to be generated in existing clusters. I think that's OK because we haven't shipped yet, but now would definitely be the time to think of any other improvements to the naming scheme.

@ashcrow
Copy link
Member

ashcrow commented Dec 7, 2018

/test e2e-aws

@kikisdeliveryservice
Copy link
Contributor

This would be really helpful when looking at lists of machineconfigs, but I'll hold my approval and defer to @abhinavdahiya :)

@abhinavdahiya
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Dec 12, 2018
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: abhinavdahiya, cgwalters

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:

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

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Dec 12, 2018
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

6 similar comments
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@ashcrow
Copy link
Member

ashcrow commented Dec 12, 2018

Seeing: machine-config-server-mfplc is not healthy in this last test. However, this is not consistent.

/test e2e-aws

@ashcrow
Copy link
Member

ashcrow commented Dec 12, 2018

Masters didn't start/stay running.

/test e2e-aws

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@crawford
Copy link
Contributor

https://openshift-gce-devel.appspot.com/build/origin-ci-test/pr-logs/pull/openshift_machine-config-operator/218/pull-ci-openshift-machine-config-operator-master-e2e-aws/679

aws_instance.bootstrap: Error launching source instance: timeout while waiting for state to become 'success' (timeout: 30s)

Same failure over here... Right around the same time. I wonder if AWS briefly fell over.

/retest

@ashcrow
Copy link
Member

ashcrow commented Dec 12, 2018

/test e2e-aws

It was the same error as @crawford referenced occurring again 😕.

@crawford
Copy link
Contributor

@ashcrow Hopefully, this will be fixed by openshift/installer#882.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@ashcrow
Copy link
Member

ashcrow commented Dec 12, 2018

/test e2e-aws

@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit 4dcf427 into openshift:master Dec 12, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants