-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 230
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Update pod controller to reconcile not found pods #1512
Update pod controller to reconcile not found pods #1512
Conversation
* If pod is not found, it shouldn't be skipped, since there could be a dangling workload that should be finalized. * Update Skip method for the pod controller to return false if the pod is not found. * Add an integration test for the case when pods are finalized and deleted before the workload finalizer is removed.
✅ Deploy Preview for kubernetes-sigs-kueue ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
|
I could add an additional check, to make sure that the job is found and not rely on the behaviour of |
No, I think your answer is enough. Can you open a separate PR to solve the problem via the workload finalizer instead? I want to see which of the PRs is simpler so that it can be cherry-picked to release-0.5. |
Actually, the bug shouldn't be exclusive to Pods. It could also happen if a Job disappears before the Workload is finalized. So I really think we should take the other approach. |
Here's a PR for the finalization in the workload reconciler: #1523 I think we should still merge this one. Pod reconciliation should be done if the pod is not found. As any other job. |
Ah right, other jobs don't have Can you also cherry-pick into release-0.5 if the automatic one doesn't work? /cherry-pick |
@alculquicondor: once the present PR merges, I will cherry-pick it on top of /lgtm in a new PR and assign it to you. In 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. |
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: b4a264aaa0ea9966d7f85b2255688a4d5e2f3d2d
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: achernevskii, alculquicondor 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:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
/cherry-pick release-0.5 |
@tenzen-y: once the present PR merges, I will cherry-pick it on top of release-0.5 in a new PR and assign it to you. In 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. |
@alculquicondor: cannot checkout In 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. |
@tenzen-y: #1512 failed to apply on top of branch "release-0.5":
In 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. |
@achernevskii Can you create a cherry-pick PR? |
Created a separate fix pull request #1524 |
/release-note-edit
|
/release-note-edit
|
What type of PR is this?
/kind bug
What this PR does / why we need it:
If pod is not found, it shouldn't be skipped, since there could be a dangling workload that should be finalized.
Update
Skip
method for the pod controller to return false if the pod is not found.Add an integration test for the case when pods are finalized and deleted before the workload finalizer is removed.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #1450
Special notes for your reviewer:
The integration test could be replaced with a unit test for the sake of testing speed increase.
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?