WIP: improve replica counting on openshift

[elmiko]

DO NOT MERGE THIS YET

This change adds logic to count the number of owned machines by each machineset when calculating the replica count to the core autoscaler. It is needed because the machine-api controllers do not include machines in deleting phase when updating their replica field. This causes a problem with the core autoscaler as the count of nodes will not match the resources from the cloud provider.

This can be removed when the machine-api controllers have been fully removed from openshift.

[openshift-ci]

Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request.
If you want CI signal for your change, please convert it to an actual PR.
You can still manually trigger a test run with /test all

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please ask for approval from elmiko. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• cluster-autoscaler/cloudprovider/clusterapi/OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[elmiko]

/test all

[elmiko]

/test all

[elmiko]

/test e2e-aws-operator

[openshift-ci]

@elmiko: all tests passed!

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

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. I understand the commands that are listed here.

[JoelSpeed]

Change appears to be what I had expected, hows the testing going?

[elmiko]

everything seems to be working for me, but i don't have a good handle on testing the case where a machineset goes into a failed mode.

[JoelSpeed]

Is this something QE have a better grip on? Can they help with the testing of this?

[elmiko]

i think this is helping, but Zhaohua did a qe run and it didn't solve the problem. it will take some deeper investigation, but i think we want this change.

[elmiko]

@JoelSpeed i think it would be worthwhile to get this in, maybe make a jira card to capture what its doing, what do you think?

[JoelSpeed]

@elmiko Was this not raised as part of a bug investigation? If we don't have a bug for it, I would expect this to be counted as one. We probably want to backport the fix right?

[openshift-bot]

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.

Mark the issue as fresh by commenting /remove-lifecycle stale.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.
Exclude this issue from closing by commenting /lifecycle frozen.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

/lifecycle stale

[openshift-bot]

Stale issues rot after 30d of inactivity.

Mark the issue as fresh by commenting /remove-lifecycle rotten.
Rotten issues close after an additional 30d of inactivity.
Exclude this issue from closing by commenting /lifecycle frozen.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

/lifecycle rotten
/remove-lifecycle stale

[openshift-bot]

Rotten issues close after 30d of inactivity.

Reopen the issue by commenting /reopen.
Mark the issue as fresh by commenting /remove-lifecycle rotten.
Exclude this issue from closing again by commenting /lifecycle frozen.

/close

[openshift-ci]

@openshift-bot: Closed this PR.

In response to this:

Rotten issues close after 30d of inactivity.

Reopen the issue by commenting /reopen.
Mark the issue as fresh by commenting /remove-lifecycle rotten.
Exclude this issue from closing again by commenting /lifecycle frozen.

/close

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-sigs/prow repository.

[elmiko]

/reopen
/remove-lifecycle rotten

i need to figure out what to do with this, i think we want it but it doesn't seem to affect the bug we were chasing.

[openshift-ci]

@elmiko: Reopened this PR.

In response to this:

/reopen
/remove-lifecycle rotten

i need to figure out what to do with this, i think we want it but it doesn't seem to affect the bug we were chasing.

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-sigs/prow repository.