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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Simplify upgrade_test - only loop during k8s master changes. #620

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 31, 2019
Merged

Simplify upgrade_test - only loop during k8s master changes. #620

merged 1 commit into from
Jan 31, 2019

Conversation

agau4779
Copy link
Contributor

@agau4779 agau4779 commented Jan 30, 2019 •
edited
Loading

Ingress Upgrade test flow is roughly:

  • create Ingress, whitebox test
  • loop until master upgraded flag is set, then exit loop when the Ingress path update is triggered
  • whitebox test the Ingress again
  • delete all resources

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. label Jan 30, 2019
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @agau4779. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

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.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. label Jan 30, 2019
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot requested review from bowei and thockin January 30, 2019 18:20
@agau4779
Copy link
Contributor Author

/assign @rramkumar1

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. label Jan 30, 2019
@rramkumar1
Copy link
Contributor

/ok-to-test

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. and removed needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Jan 30, 2019
rramkumar1
rramkumar1 reviewed Jan 30, 2019
View reviewed changes
cmd/e2e-test/upgrade_test.go Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/e2e/helpers.go Outdated
@@ -51,8 +52,16 @@ func WaitForIngress(s *Sandbox, ing *v1beta1.Ingress, options *WaitForIngressOpt
var err error
ing, err = s.f.Clientset.Extensions().Ingresses(s.Namespace).Get(ing.Name, metav1.GetOptions{})
if err != nil {
if strings.Contains(err.Error(), "connection refused") {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

IMO, we should leave this connection refused check outside of the call to WaitForIngress as it was before. It should be the callers responsibility to check for certain errors.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think status.go#flush() handles this case - see these lines:

ingress-gce/pkg/e2e/status.go

Lines 210 to 215 in 07bf1f8

if err != nil {
// if the k8s master is upgrading, we suppress the error message because
// we expect a "connection refused" error in this situation.
if len(sm.cm.Data[masterUpgradingKey]) > 0 {
return
}

It looks like I accidentally omitted a return statement there prior to this PR - this should suppress the extra error messages.

@agau4779 agau4779 force-pushed the upgrade-testing branch 4 times, most recently from ca01ed5 to da8bb03 Compare January 30, 2019 19:33
@rramkumar1
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm
/approve

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 31, 2019
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: agau4779, rramkumar1

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 the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Jan 31, 2019
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit 408bd9b into kubernetes:master Jan 31, 2019
@agau4779 agau4779 deleted the upgrade-testing branch February 6, 2019 19:55
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@rramkumar1 rramkumar1 rramkumar1 left review comments

@bowei bowei Awaiting requested review from bowei

@thockin thockin Awaiting requested review from thockin

Assignees

@rramkumar1 rramkumar1

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. ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@agau4779 @k8s-ci-robot @rramkumar1