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

Remove references to ClusterSpec.API from nodeup #15615

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 16, 2023

Conversation

johngmyers
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Jul 10, 2023
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot requested a review from hakman July 10, 2023 13:29
@@ -64,6 +64,8 @@ type Config struct {
KubeProxy *kops.KubeProxyConfig
// Networking configures networking.
Networking kops.NetworkingSpec
// API controls how the Kubernetes API is exposed.
API *kops.APISpec `json:",omitempty"`
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Devil's advocate: are we just going to end up copying the Cluster into the nodeup.Config object? Why do we have two objects?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We only copy fields that affect the configurations of nodes of the appropriate type. Changes to NodeupConfig result in nodes of the relevant instance group being selected for rolling update, whereas changes to the ClusterSpec do not. So since we only populate this new field for control-plane and api-server nodes, changes to the sub-fields we populate result in control-plane and api-server nodes being selected for update, but worker nodes not. Previously, no nodes would be selected for update, so control-plane and api-server nodes would continue to run with outdated configuration.

@johngmyers
Copy link
Member Author

/retest

@justinsb
Copy link
Member

As discussed in office hours, this lgtm.

/approve
/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. labels Jul 15, 2023
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: justinsb

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 Jul 15, 2023
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. labels Jul 15, 2023
@johngmyers
Copy link
Member Author

/retest

@hakman
Copy link
Member

hakman commented Jul 16, 2023

/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jul 16, 2023
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit 57bef1e into kubernetes:master Jul 16, 2023
8 checks passed
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added this to the v1.28 milestone Jul 16, 2023
@johngmyers johngmyers deleted the nodeup-publicname branch July 16, 2023 04:22
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. area/api area/nodeup 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/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants