🐛 Fix ControlPlaneComponentHealthCheckSeconds validation in KubeadmConfigSpec.Validate #12609
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
cncf-cla: yes
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
size/M
|
/test pull-cluster-api-e2e-main |
|
/cherry-pick release-1.11 |
|
@sbueringer: once the present PR merges, I will cherry-pick it on top of 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-sigs/prow repository. |
|
/assign @JoelSpeed @sivchari @mboersma |
sbueringer
added
the
area/provider/control-plane-kubeadm
|
/hold |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
do-not-merge/hold
KubeadmConfigSpec.Validate Signed-off-by: Stefan Büringer [email protected]
sbueringer
force-pushed
the
pr-fix-kcfg-validate
branch
from
901aac0 to
83ac620
Compare
|
/test pull-cluster-api-e2e-main |
| // Only ensure ControlPlaneComponentHealthCheckSeconds fields are equal for KubeadmControlPlane and KubeadmControlPlaneTemplate. | ||
| // In KubeadmConfig objects usually only one of InitConfiguration or JoinConfiguration is defined as a Machine uses | ||
| // either kubeadm init or kubeadm join, but not both. | ||
| if isKCP { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We can't enforce this for KubeadmConfig / KubeadmConfigTemplate.
KubeadmConfig will only have InitConfiguration or JoinConfiguration
KubeadmConfigTemplate will only have JoinConfiguration (it's only for worker nodes and they only use kubeadm join)
Anyway, this whole validation block will be removed when we drop v1beta1
| kubeadmConfigSpec: | ||
| clusterConfiguration: | ||
| apiServer: | ||
| timeoutForControlPlane: 20m |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Some easy e2e test coverage. This would fail without the fix, because the KubeadmConfigs that KCP generates only have InitConfiguration or JoinConfiguration defined, but not both
|
/hold cancel |
k8s-ci-robot
removed
the
do-not-merge/hold
|
@sbueringer: 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. 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. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
|
/test pull-cluster-api-e2e-main (autoscaler flake, has nothing to do with this PR, will be fixed via another one) |
|
/lgtm |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
|
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: 939475763f819a0dbee8af41776a6087cd614813
|
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: JoelSpeed 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 |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
approved
|
@sbueringer: new pull request created: #12624 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-sigs/prow repository. |
6 participants
Signed-off-by: Stefan Büringer [email protected]
What this PR does / why we need it:
Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in
fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):Part of #12605