feat(admission): implement admission controllers deletion #32523
Conversation
wdhif
added
team/container-platform
github-actions
bot
added
the
short review
Signed-off-by: Wassim DHIF <[email protected]>
wdhif
force-pushed
the
CONTP-439/wassim.dhif/fix-admission-delete
branch
from
cea97ec to
5e2bfde
Compare
|
[Fast Unit Tests Report] On pipeline 51820856 (CI Visibility). The following jobs did not run any unit tests: Jobs:
If you modified Go files and expected unit tests to run in these jobs, please double check the job logs. If you think tests should have been executed reach out to #agent-devx-help |
Uncompressed package size comparisonComparison with ancestor Diff per package
Decision |
Test changes on VMUse this command from test-infra-definitions to manually test this PR changes on a VM: inv aws.create-vm --pipeline-id=51820856 --os-family=ubuntuNote: This applies to commit 0865aeb |
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: f8da8a4 Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | +0.43 | [-0.24, +1.11] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | +0.32 | [+0.26, +0.38] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | +0.28 | [+0.20, +0.37] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.07 | [-0.64, +0.79] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | +0.05 | [-0.42, +0.51] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | +0.03 | [-0.00, +0.07] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | egress throughput | +0.03 | [-0.80, +0.86] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.02, +0.01] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.12, +0.11] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.03 | [-0.67, +0.61] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | egress throughput | -0.05 | [-0.90, +0.80] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.09 | [-0.86, +0.67] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | -0.10 | [-0.22, +0.03] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.14 | [-0.94, +0.66] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.15 | [-1.06, +0.76] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | -0.20 | [-3.42, +3.02] | 1 | Logs |
Bounds Checks: ✅ Passed
| perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle | memory_usage | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory_usage | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_logs | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | quality_gate_logs | memory_usage | 10/10 |
Explanation
Confidence level: 90.00%
Effect size tolerance: |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%
Performance changes are noted in the perf column of each table:
- ✅ = significantly better comparison variant performance
- ❌ = significantly worse comparison variant performance
- ➖ = no significant change in performance
A regression test is an A/B test of target performance in a repeatable rig, where "performance" is measured as "comparison variant minus baseline variant" for an optimization goal (e.g., ingress throughput). Due to intrinsic variability in measuring that goal, we can only estimate its mean value for each experiment; we report uncertainty in that value as a 90.00% confidence interval denoted "Δ mean % CI".
For each experiment, we decide whether a change in performance is a "regression" -- a change worth investigating further -- if all of the following criteria are true:
-
Its estimated |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%, indicating the change is big enough to merit a closer look.
-
Its 90.00% confidence interval "Δ mean % CI" does not contain zero, indicating that if our statistical model is accurate, there is at least a 90.00% chance there is a difference in performance between baseline and comparison variants.
-
Its configuration does not mark it "erratic".
CI Pass/Fail Decision
✅ Passed. All Quality Gates passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check lost_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
releasenotes-dca/notes/delete_admission_webhooks-5c89ccd6c0d6ff8b.yaml
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
github-actions
bot
added
medium review
…f8b.yaml Co-authored-by: Esther Kim <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me. Thanks for cleaning this up!
Will leave it to your discretion but it might be possible to generate unit tests for this scenario by first creating a mock controller with both webhooks enabled and then creating a second controller with both webhooks disabled and check for the IsNotFound error afterwards.
This would require some changing of the createController and newFixtureV1 to allow control over the webhook config received which currently defaults to the same one from getV1Cfg().
Hypothetical flow as follows:
# First controller creates the mutating webhook
f1 := newFixtureV1(t)
c1 := f1.run()
require.Eventually(t, func() bool {
mutatingWebhookConfiguration, err = c1.mutatingWebhooksLister.Get(v1Cfg1.getWebhookName())
return err == nil
}, waitFor, tick)
# Second controller deletes the mutating webhook
f2 := newFixtureVOtherConfig(t)
c2 := f.run()
require.Eventually(t, func() bool {
_, err = c2.mutatingWebhooksLister.Get(v1Cfg2.getWebhookName())
return errors.IsNotFound(err)
}, waitFor, tick)
|
/merge |
Devflow running:
|
dd-mergequeue
bot
deleted the
CONTP-439/wassim.dhif/fix-admission-delete
branch
What does this PR do?
Implements the deletion of Admission Controller Webhooks by the Cluster Agent.
Motivation
This is needed to allow the Cluster Agent to delete Admission Controller Webhooks if they are disabled in the configuration.
Describe how you validated your changes
You should see the following RBACs for the Cluster Agent
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
It is not possible to delete Admission Controllers by setting the
admission_controller.enabledtofalse.Additional Notes