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

Don't try building TLS for etcd-manager if not using etcd-manager #9302

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 9, 2020

Conversation

johngmyers
Copy link
Member

Fixes #9298
/kind bug

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Jun 8, 2020
@johngmyers johngmyers force-pushed the fix-legacy-manager branch from 7be3fae to bacaf87 Compare June 8, 2020 17:04
@moshevayner
Copy link
Member

/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jun 9, 2020
@rifelpet
Copy link
Member

rifelpet commented Jun 9, 2020

/approve

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: johngmyers, rifelpet

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 Jun 9, 2020
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit 7a5dd52 into kubernetes:master Jun 9, 2020
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added this to the v1.19 milestone Jun 9, 2020
@johngmyers johngmyers deleted the fix-legacy-manager branch June 9, 2020 14:42
@justinsb
Copy link
Member

justinsb commented Jun 12, 2020

Ah - the distinction I tend to make is that Get returns an error when the thing is not found, Find returns nil when the thing is not found. If we've changed that semantic for FindCert that might well cause us some trouble... I'll look at renaming FindCert -> GetCert and see which way we need to go...

Edit: Actually looks fine, FindCert still returns (nil, nil) when not found; it's just the additional cert afterwards. On returning error vs not, being stricter here is cleaner, the risk is that it fails nodeup when there's nothing that can be done. I'm not very consistent on what we should do here, but I think in retrospect failing fast rather than failing subtly is better so 👍

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/nodeup cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Periodic e2e fails for Kubernetes 1.11
5 participants