-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.4k
🌱 [WIP] make topology upgrade sequential #6652
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
🌱 [WIP] make topology upgrade sequential #6652
Conversation
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
@ykakarap: The following test failed, say
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR. 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. |
@@ -611,6 +626,7 @@ func computeMachineDeploymentVersion(s *scope.Scope, desiredControlPlaneState *s | |||
// Check if we are about to upgrade the control plane. In that case, do not upgrade the machine deployment yet. | |||
// Wait for the new upgrade operation on the control plane to finish before picking up the new version for the | |||
// machine deployment. | |||
// TODO: We probably don't need this check anymore. |
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 you might be right. But because it's very easy to miss an edge case I would prefer keeping this logic as a fail safe so that we never under any circumstances trigger a MD rollout while the CP is still upgrading.
I think with the current code it's also easier to assess that vs. if we have to infer that based on the code above for all edge cases that we can think of.
Logic looks good to me |
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs. This bot triages issues and PRs according to the following rules:
You can:
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community. /lifecycle stale |
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs. This bot triages issues and PRs according to the following rules:
You can:
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community. /lifecycle rotten |
/lifecycle fronzen |
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs. This bot triages PRs according to the following rules:
You can:
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community. /close |
@k8s-triage-robot: Closed this PR. In response to this:
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. |
What this PR does / why we need it:
This PR fixes the Kubernetes version upgrade propagation logic in managed topologies so that the upgrades are always done sequentially.
TODO:
TopologyReconciled
condition's messaging needs to be adjusted to reflect the new possible stateWhich issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in
fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)
format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):Fixes #6651