✨Make machine's providerID consistent with node providerID #1730

alexander-demicev · 2020-05-20T12:18:53Z

This PR makes providerID of the machine more consistent with the node's providerID. See the attached issue for more details

k8s-ci-robot · 2020-05-20T12:19:00Z

Welcome @alexander-demichev!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api-provider-aws 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api-provider-aws has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

k8s-ci-robot · 2020-05-20T12:19:01Z

Hi @alexander-demichev. 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 /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.

randomvariable · 2020-05-20T12:44:57Z

/ok-to-test

api/v1alpha3/types.go

controllers/awsmachine_controller.go

enxebre · 2020-05-20T17:59:11Z

controllers/awsmachine_controller.go

@@ -411,7 +412,7 @@ func (r *AWSMachineReconciler) reconcileNormal(_ context.Context, machineScope *
 	}

 	// Make sure Spec.ProviderID is always set.
-	machineScope.SetProviderID(fmt.Sprintf("aws:////%s", instance.ID))
+	machineScope.SetProviderID(fmt.Sprintf("aws:///%s/%s", aws.StringValue(machineScope.AWSMachine.Spec.FailureDomain), instance.ID))


This still needs to be addressed #1730 (comment)

enxebre · 2020-05-20T18:14:32Z

controllers/awsmachine_controller.go

+	failureDomain := machineScope.AWSMachine.Spec.FailureDomain
+	if failureDomain == nil {
+		failureDomain = machineScope.Machine.Spec.FailureDomain
+	}


Now this logic and the format fmt.Sprintf("aws:///%s/%s", aws.StringValue(failureDomain) are invariant. If we move them inside the SetProviderID() func and we pass only the instance.ID we can unit test the multiple scenarios for failureDomain, e.g both empty, one empty, both filled. wdyt

Good idea, that's definitely easier to test

detiber · 2020-05-20T18:52:35Z

controllers/awsmachine_controller.go

@@ -411,7 +410,7 @@ func (r *AWSMachineReconciler) reconcileNormal(_ context.Context, machineScope *
 	}

 	// Make sure Spec.ProviderID is always set.
-	machineScope.SetProviderID(fmt.Sprintf("aws:////%s", instance.ID))
+	machineScope.SetProviderID(instance.ID)


Would it be better to update getOrCreate to also return the current AZ based on the returned AWS calls instead of trying to rely on the AWSMachine or Machine fields having FailureDomain set, since it's an optional field on both resources?

Good idea. getOrCreate will end up converting aws.instance to infrav1.instance using SDKToInstance, maybe we can add AZ to infrav1.Instance and have conversion logic in SDKToInstance ? Is this an acceptable API change?

Sounds good to me, I don't expect there to be any downstream consumers of that part of the API, so changes should not be an issue.

detiber · 2020-05-21T16:17:14Z

/milestone v0.5.4

enxebre · 2020-05-22T08:18:19Z

pkg/cloud/scope/machine.go

@@ -138,8 +139,9 @@ func (m *MachineScope) GetProviderID() string {
 }

 // SetProviderID sets the AWSMachine providerID in spec.
-func (m *MachineScope) SetProviderID(v string) {
-	m.AWSMachine.Spec.ProviderID = pointer.StringPtr(v)
+func (m *MachineScope) SetProviderID(instanceID, availabilityZone string) {


I'd appreciate if we can put some units for this?

it might seem trivial enough as to not deserve a test, but the func is actually relying in a handwritten fmt "arbitrary" format and an external given implementation for StringPtr. It’s very cheap fo us to put a unit and it becomes fairly valuable if some one considers to change the impl details in the future. Also it makes way easier to visualise at a glange what provider should look like for the different cases for someone with less context.

enxebre · 2020-05-22T09:35:32Z

thanks Alex!
can we please make sure there's an appropriate release note for this?
/lgtm

detiber

This looks great, just need to fix up the lossy conversion for the new field in the status and then lgtm

api/v1alpha2/zz_generated.conversion.go

detiber · 2020-05-26T15:46:51Z

/approve

k8s-ci-robot · 2020-05-26T15:47:06Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: alexander-demichev, detiber

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:

~~OWNERS~~ [detiber]

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 added the cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. label May 20, 2020

k8s-ci-robot requested review from chuckha and sethp-nr May 20, 2020 12:18

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 May 20, 2020

k8s-ci-robot added the size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. label May 20, 2020

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 May 20, 2020