-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 668
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
topologySpreadConstraints: handle nodeTaintsPolicy
and nodeAffinityPolicy
constraints
#1208
Conversation
Welcome @nitindagar0! |
Hi @nitindagar0. 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 Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. 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. |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
Also we are not able to access/fork this repo using our microsoft account and Hence we are using our personal account. Please allow our "nitindagar_microsoft" account to get the access. |
@nitindagar0 thanks, should we close #1205 if this replaces it? Also please see the comment from that PR about if the new plans for NodeFit spec will fit with this: #1205 (comment) I would also still like to see some test cases that clearly demonstrate the use case for this and shows that the new feature addresses that use case. Regarding not being able to fork the repo, this is a public repo that anyone should be able to access. We don't grant individual accounts access and can't do that anyway as the repo's access is controlled by kubernetes-sig org policies. I tried to see your |
/ok-to-test |
/retest |
@damemi we have gone through NodeFit spec this looks like a good approach for finding out eligble nodes but right now we wanted to quickly fix the issue and once nodefit spec PR is merged we will plan to use that. for the other PR, Lets wait for Marc to close that as he is on leave and will be back in couple of days. we are working on test cases and will add some more tests for this new behaviour. |
@damemi , I have added few more test cases to test the new behaviour. Please review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@MarcPow and @nitindagar0 Thank you both for your contributions here. I've added a few questions and some nits to be addressed. Look forward to your feedback.
pkg/framework/plugins/removepodsviolatingtopologyspreadconstraint/topologyspreadconstraint.go
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
pkg/framework/plugins/removepodsviolatingtopologyspreadconstraint/topologyspreadconstraint.go
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
pkg/framework/plugins/removepodsviolatingtopologyspreadconstraint/topologyspreadconstraint.go
Show resolved
Hide resolved
pkg/framework/plugins/removepodsviolatingtopologyspreadconstraint/topologyspreadconstraint.go
Show resolved
Hide resolved
/retest-required |
/label tide/merge-method-squash |
/retitle topologySpreadConstraints: handle |
nodeTaintsPolicy
and nodeAffinityPolicy
constraints
@MarcPow @nitindagar0 Would you please add an e2e test for this here? Let me know if you run into any issues with that |
Wanted to understand more, What exact scenarios we wanted to add in e2e test cases, we already added scenario specific to nodeaffinity and node selector in tsc_test file |
@nitindagar0 end-to-end tests run against a local Kubernetes cluster and test against real Kubernetes resources. It has several benefits such as:
If you can squash your commits, I can help with adding an extra commit with a simple end-to-end test. |
corrected function name refactored duplicate TopoContraint check logic Added more test cases for testing node eligibility scenario Added 5 test cases for testing scenarios related to node eligibility
@a7i I was able to squash last four commits only and pushed the changes |
Hi @a7i, any update for E2E test case, We squashed the commits last week as you suggested |
hey @nitindagar0 I do not have permission to push. Can you enable maintainers to edit? |
@a7i Thankyou for adding e2e test case in the PR. Also I have checked "allow maintainers to edit" on this PR. I have also added you as collaborator in the forked repo "deschedulerUpdate" |
Since you have created a separate PR. Should this PR be closed ? |
You can either cherry-pick my commit or we can close this PR |
Closing this PR as required changes are available in following PR |
In this PR Incorporated Marc's Changes for node-affinity as well as fixed failing test cases. Below is more information on existing PR
#1205