Complete implementation of image pull failure handling #4952
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Signed-off-by: Sascha Schwarze <schwarzs@de.ibm.com>
tekton-robot
added
kind/feature
tekton-robot
added
the
needs-ok-to-test
|
Hi @SaschaSchwarze0. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a tektoncd 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. |
|
If somebody has a hint where the problem with my release note block is, let me know. |
|
@SaschaSchwarze0 you need to remove the space between the backticks and release-note |
tekton-robot
added
release-note
Thanks, no idea how that could have gotten in there. lol |
|
/ok-to-test |
tekton-robot
added
ok-to-test
|
The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
|
|
/retest |
jerop
approved these changes
Jun 10, 2022
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @SaschaSchwarze0 🎉
Please add the context that you have in the pull request description to the commit message as well: https://github.com/tektoncd/community/blob/main/standards.md#commits
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: jerop 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 |
tekton-robot
added
the
approved
|
/test pull-tekton-pipeline-integration-tests |
|
Thank you @SaschaSchwarze0 This looks good to me. |
vdemeester
added a commit
to vdemeester/tektoncd-pipeline
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 29, 2022
`tr.Status.TaskSpec.Steps` can be out-of-sync with `tr.Status.Steps`. As we already have the image information (through `ImageID`) in the struct be are getting from our iteration, we don't need to look into another array, with the risk of getting a panic. The same goes for sidecars. We managed to get multiple panics on the controller prior to this change. See tektoncd#4952 for the initial implementation. Signed-off-by: Vincent Demeester <vdemeest@redhat.com>
vdemeester
added a commit
to vdemeester/tektoncd-pipeline
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 29, 2022
`tr.Status.TaskSpec.Steps` can be out-of-sync with `tr.Status.Steps`. As we already have the image information (through `ImageID`) in the struct be are getting from our iteration, we don't need to look into another array, with the risk of getting a panic. The same goes for sidecars. We managed to get multiple panics on the controller prior to this change. See tektoncd#4952 for the initial implementation. Signed-off-by: Vincent Demeester <vdemeest@redhat.com>
vdemeester
added a commit
to vdemeester/tektoncd-pipeline
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 29, 2022
`tr.Status.TaskSpec.Steps` can be out-of-sync with `tr.Status.Steps`. As we already have the image information (through `ImageID`) in the struct be are getting from our iteration, we don't need to look into another array, with the risk of getting a panic. The same goes for sidecars. We managed to get multiple panics on the controller prior to this change. See tektoncd#4952 for the initial implementation. Signed-off-by: Vincent Demeester <vdemeest@redhat.com>
7 tasks
tekton-robot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 29, 2022
`tr.Status.TaskSpec.Steps` can be out-of-sync with `tr.Status.Steps`. As we already have the image information (through `ImageID`) in the struct be are getting from our iteration, we don't need to look into another array, with the risk of getting a panic. The same goes for sidecars. We managed to get multiple panics on the controller prior to this change. See #4952 for the initial implementation. Signed-off-by: Vincent Demeester <vdemeest@redhat.com>
piyush-garg
pushed a commit
to piyush-garg/pipeline
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 1, 2022
`tr.Status.TaskSpec.Steps` can be out-of-sync with `tr.Status.Steps`. As we already have the image information (through `ImageID`) in the struct be are getting from our iteration, we don't need to look into another array, with the risk of getting a panic. The same goes for sidecars. We managed to get multiple panics on the controller prior to this change. See tektoncd#4952 for the initial implementation. Signed-off-by: Vincent Demeester <vdemeest@redhat.com>
7 tasks
piyush-garg
pushed a commit
to piyush-garg/pipeline
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 1, 2022
`tr.Status.TaskSpec.Steps` can be out-of-sync with `tr.Status.Steps`. As we already have the image information (through `ImageID`) in the struct be are getting from our iteration, we don't need to look into another array, with the risk of getting a panic. The same goes for sidecars. We managed to get multiple panics on the controller prior to this change. See tektoncd#4952 for the initial implementation. Signed-off-by: Vincent Demeester <vdemeest@redhat.com>
7 tasks
tekton-robot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 1, 2022
`tr.Status.TaskSpec.Steps` can be out-of-sync with `tr.Status.Steps`. As we already have the image information (through `ImageID`) in the struct be are getting from our iteration, we don't need to look into another array, with the risk of getting a panic. The same goes for sidecars. We managed to get multiple panics on the controller prior to this change. See #4952 for the initial implementation. Signed-off-by: Vincent Demeester <vdemeest@redhat.com>
tekton-robot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 1, 2022
`tr.Status.TaskSpec.Steps` can be out-of-sync with `tr.Status.Steps`. As we already have the image information (through `ImageID`) in the struct be are getting from our iteration, we don't need to look into another array, with the risk of getting a panic. The same goes for sidecars. We managed to get multiple panics on the controller prior to this change. See #4952 for the initial implementation. Signed-off-by: Vincent Demeester <vdemeest@redhat.com>
JeromeJu
pushed a commit
to JeromeJu/pipeline
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 2, 2022
`tr.Status.TaskSpec.Steps` can be out-of-sync with `tr.Status.Steps`. As we already have the image information (through `ImageID`) in the struct be are getting from our iteration, we don't need to look into another array, with the risk of getting a panic. The same goes for sidecars. We managed to get multiple panics on the controller prior to this change. See tektoncd#4952 for the initial implementation. Signed-off-by: Vincent Demeester <vdemeest@redhat.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Signed-off-by: Sascha Schwarze schwarzs@de.ibm.com
Changes
I was a little confused by the code flow from #4921. A
checkPodFailedfunction that then always setTaskRunReasonImagePullFailedin case of an error looked incorrect.So, I am doing what I think @abayer referred to in #4921 (comment) = adding the reason to the return values of the function.
Also putting in what @imjasonh asked for in #4921 (comment) = the step name and the image into the message.
Finally, I am adding the missing sidecar handling.
/kind feature
Submitter Checklist
As the author of this PR, please check off the items in this checklist:
functionality, content, code)
(if there are no user facing changes, use release note "NONE")
Release Notes