-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 150
CreateVolume respects the topology requirements of the node #200
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
Merged
k8s-ci-robot
merged 3 commits into
kubernetes-csi:master
from
alexanderKhaustov:create-volumes-with-topology
May 14, 2019
Merged
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This assumes that the storage backend can support a one-node topology, but may not be the case for something that requires say a min of 3 nodes for replication.
I'm unsure what would be a great way to support that in the test though. This is probably ok for now, but it might be good to add a comment about the assumption.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
csi-sanity essentially simulates a CO with a single node, so I think this code change is consistent with the rest of the testing.
@alexanderKhaustov can you add a short comment here that explains that?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry for the delay
I'm not sure I understand the potentially problematic scenario.
The SP is returning topology information for a node, but then it doesn't support provisioning a volume with this topology, because of a requirement (existing only externally to csi plugin/spec?) that a volume can only be created if there are no less than 3 nodes with some specific topology?
If that is the case then it seems that such an external peculiarity is hardly within the scope of csi-test, is it not? (csi-test aside, it seems that such a plugin would also perform unexpectedly for a CO end-user, would it not?)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@alexanderKhaustov: I agree. Let me try to propose a comment that you can put above the new code and then if @msau42 has no additional comments we can merge it:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think it would be good to add a note that this test does not support storage backends that require more than 1 node.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've checked the spec more thoroughly, seems like there are no requirements for the setups that a SP MUST support. So I added comments about test assumptions.
As an aside, with regard to the topology returned by NodeGetInfo the spec suprisingly states that
(https://github.com/container-storage-interface/spec/blob/master/spec.md#nodegetinfo)
rather than MUST use which seems more reasonable. Do you know any reason for that?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't know why topology information is allowed to be ignored.