Skip to content

Only add disk support topologies if StorageClass parameter is true #2089

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 5 commits into from
May 28, 2025
Merged

Only add disk support topologies if StorageClass parameter is true #2089

merged 5 commits into from
May 28, 2025

Conversation

julianKatz
Copy link
Contributor

@julianKatz julianKatz commented May 12, 2025 •
edited
Loading

What type of PR is this?
/kind feature

What this PR does / why we need it:

This PR makes the disk topology feature only add a disk support label to PV NodeAffinity if a new StorageClass parameter is specified: use-allowed-disk-topology: true.

The benefit of this is that GKE can enable the --disk-topology=true flag without immediately changing PDCSI's behavior. The feature becomes available, but not enabled. Customers can then choose to enable the feature when they are ready, plus they gain the granularity of enabling it for specific disk products at a time. Since most customers need this for Hyperdisk usage, that allows them to target the functionality to their use case.

I've manually tested this feature. See the steps recorded here.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

Only add disk support topologies if StorageClass parameter is true.  --disk-topology=true flag will no longer be sufficient to invoke the functionality.

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

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

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed Indicates that a PR should not merge because it's missing one of the release note labels. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. labels May 12, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. label May 12, 2025
@julianKatz
Copy link
Contributor Author

/ok-to-test

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. label May 12, 2025
@julianKatz julianKatz force-pushed the enable-disk-topology-with-StorageClass-parameter branch from 9c74cce to 44abc6e Compare May 16, 2025 20:14
@julianKatz julianKatz marked this pull request as ready for review May 16, 2025 20:17
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label May 16, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot requested review from mattcary and tonyzhc May 16, 2025 20:17
@mattcary
Copy link
Contributor

This should have a release note as it adds a user-visible feature.

@tonyzhc
Copy link
Contributor

tonyzhc commented May 19, 2025

Can you add an e2e test in test/e2e/tests/single_zone_e2e_test.go as well?

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. and removed do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed Indicates that a PR should not merge because it's missing one of the release note labels. labels May 19, 2025
@sunnylovestiramisu
Copy link
Contributor

Is this at least manually end to end tested on GCE clusters? Maybe add the test cases you did in the description.

@julianKatz
Copy link
Contributor Author

Is this at least manually end to end tested on GCE clusters? Maybe add the test cases you did in the description.

Added! Find them here and also in the description.

@julianKatz
Copy link
Contributor Author

This should have a release note as it adds a user-visible feature.

Is this more than what's contained in the PR description? I have the release-note label and I'm looking for PRs that show changes to a separate file but not finding any.

@julianKatz julianKatz force-pushed the enable-disk-topology-with-StorageClass-parameter branch from 44abc6e to 23cab0c Compare May 22, 2025 00:01
@julianKatz
Copy link
Contributor Author

test run for comparison: https://prow.k8s.io/view/gs/kubernetes-ci-logs/pr-logs/pull/kubernetes-sigs_gcp-compute-persistent-disk-csi-driver/2089/pull-gcp-compute-persistent-disk-csi-driver-e2e/1925356347314933760

@julianKatz
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

@julianKatz
Copy link
Contributor Author

Is this at least manually end to end tested on GCE clusters? Maybe add the test cases you did in the description.

@sunnylovestiramisu @tonyzhc I have added an e2e test in the zonal file and it is passing

@mattcary
Copy link
Contributor

This should have a release note as it adds a user-visible feature.

Is this more than what's contained in the PR description? I have the release-note label and I'm looking for PRs that show changes to a separate file but not finding any.

Release notes get pulled out automatically for the change log so they're nice to have.

mattcary
mattcary reviewed May 28, 2025
View reviewed changes
pkg/common/parameters.go Outdated
@@ -319,6 +324,17 @@ func (pp *ParameterProcessor) ExtractAndDefaultParameters(parameters map[string]
if v != "" {
p.AccessMode = v
}
case ParameterKeyUseAllowedDiskTopology:
if !pp.EnableDiskTopology {
return p, d, fmt.Errorf("parameters contains invalid option %q when disk topology is not enabled", ParameterKeyUseAllowedDiskTopology)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If someone has a storage class and the driver flag gets turned off, the storage class will stop working & all their workloads will be stuck.

I think it would be better to warn & ignore the irrelevant parameter. Getting a missing topology, when it's ignored, seems better than blocking workloads. I think this will make some upgrade/downgrade scenarios easier as well.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Changed to warning and updated unit tests

@julianKatz julianKatz force-pushed the enable-disk-topology-with-StorageClass-parameter branch from 7ce1529 to 5ad3127 Compare May 28, 2025 20:25
@julianKatz
Copy link
Contributor Author

/test pull-gcp-compute-persistent-disk-csi-driver-unit

@mattcary
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm

/approve

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label May 28, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: hajiler, julianKatz, mattcary

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 May 28, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit 84af6e9 into kubernetes-sigs:master May 28, 2025
9 checks passed
@julianKatz julianKatz deleted the enable-disk-topology-with-StorageClass-parameter branch May 29, 2025 18:19
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@mattcary mattcary mattcary left review comments

@hajiler hajiler hajiler approved these changes

@amacaskill amacaskill Awaiting requested review from amacaskill

@sunnylovestiramisu sunnylovestiramisu Awaiting requested review from sunnylovestiramisu

@tonyzhc tonyzhc Awaiting requested review from tonyzhc

Assignees

@mattcary mattcary

Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. 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. ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
6 participants
@julianKatz @k8s-ci-robot @mattcary @tonyzhc @sunnylovestiramisu @hajiler