Skip to content
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

chore: Clarify failed scheduling error on all disruption methods #1233

Conversation

jonathan-innis
Copy link
Member

@jonathan-innis jonathan-innis commented May 6, 2024

Fixes #N/A

Description

This change updates the eventing to be more specific about why not all pods were able to schedule, similar to how Consolidation gives this information back through eventing right now.

Before PR

  Type    Reason             Age    From       Message
  ----    ------             ----   ----       -------
  Normal  DisruptionBlocked  2s     karpenter  Cannot disrupt NodeClaim: Scheduling simulation failed to schedule all pods

After PR

  Type    Reason             Age    From       Message
  ----    ------             ----   ----       -------
  Normal  Unconsolidatable            62s   karpenter  not all pods would schedule, default/inflate-6f56784d74-cqzdj => would schedule against uninitialized nodeclaim/default-lkv5s

How was this change tested?

make presubmit

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: jonathan-innis

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

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. labels May 6, 2024
@jonathan-innis jonathan-innis force-pushed the clarify-failed-scheduling-error branch from ea8861a to 151a5af Compare May 6, 2024 06:37
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. label May 6, 2024
@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented May 6, 2024

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 8975809269

Warning: This coverage report may be inaccurate.

This pull request's base commit is no longer the HEAD commit of its target branch. This means it includes changes from outside the original pull request, including, potentially, unrelated coverage changes.

Details

  • 15 of 16 (93.75%) changed or added relevant lines in 4 files are covered.
  • No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
  • Overall coverage increased (+0.08%) to 78.902%

Changes Missing Coverage Covered Lines Changed/Added Lines %
pkg/controllers/disruption/validation.go 0 1 0.0%
Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build 8975689141: 0.08%
Covered Lines: 8366
Relevant Lines: 10603

💛 - Coveralls

@jonathan-innis jonathan-innis force-pushed the clarify-failed-scheduling-error branch from 151a5af to 8094e19 Compare May 6, 2024 07:05
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. labels May 6, 2024
@jonathan-innis jonathan-innis force-pushed the clarify-failed-scheduling-error branch 2 times, most recently from 0c300d2 to 9baf552 Compare May 6, 2024 07:28
@jonathan-innis jonathan-innis force-pushed the clarify-failed-scheduling-error branch from 9baf552 to bf47e5a Compare May 6, 2024 21:08
@engedaam
Copy link
Contributor

engedaam commented May 7, 2024

/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label May 7, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit e59ba19 into kubernetes-sigs:main May 7, 2024
12 checks passed
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. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants