OCPBUGS-88732: Treat missing cloud config outages as transient#472
OCPBUGS-88732: Treat missing cloud config outages as transient#472RadekManak wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
WalkthroughIn ChangesMissing source ConfigMap handling
Estimated code review effort🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~12 minutes 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 13 | ❌ 2❌ Failed checks (2 warnings)
✅ Passed checks (13 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Comment |
|
@RadekManak: The The following commands are available to trigger optional jobs: Use DetailsIn 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-sigs/prow repository. |
|
[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. DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
RadekManak
changed the title
openshift-ci-robot
added
jira/valid-reference
|
@RadekManak: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-88732, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state. 3 validation(s) were run on this bug
The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker. DetailsIn 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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
|
@RadekManak: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-88732, which is valid. 3 validation(s) were run on this bug
DetailsIn 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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
Keep brief source ConfigMap outages on the retry path so CCCMO does not immediately degrade during recovery, while preserving terminal behavior for real bad-key misconfigurations.
RadekManak
force-pushed
the
regression-ci-failure-investigation
branch
from
b53992f to
042c11c
Compare
|
/testwith openshift/cloud-provider-aws/main/regression-clusterinfra-aws-ipi-ccm openshift/cloud-provider-aws#158 |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@pkg/controllers/cloud_config_sync_controller_test.go`:
- Around line 431-438: The code in the deletion loop deletes ConfigMaps but does
not wait for the deletions to be observed before proceeding, which can cause
race conditions with subsequent creates. After the deletion loop that calls
cl.Delete() on each ConfigMap in existingCMs.Items, add an Eventually block that
polls to verify all ConfigMaps have been deleted from the namespace by listing
the ConfigMaps again and confirming the list is empty. This ensures the
deletions are fully observed before the test continues, preventing flaky
AlreadyExists or conflict errors.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Repository: openshift/coderabbit/.coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Enterprise
Run ID: ddd7f818-5aa2-4d7a-8264-0e8a3d087a27
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
pkg/controllers/cloud_config_sync_controller.gopkg/controllers/cloud_config_sync_controller_test.go
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- pkg/controllers/cloud_config_sync_controller.go
| deleteOptions := &client.DeleteOptions{ | ||
| GracePeriodSeconds: ptr.To[int64](0), | ||
| } | ||
| existingCMs := &corev1.ConfigMapList{} | ||
| Expect(cl.List(ctx, existingCMs, &client.ListOptions{Namespace: targetNamespaceName})).To(Succeed()) | ||
| for _, cm := range existingCMs.Items { | ||
| Expect(cl.Delete(ctx, cm.DeepCopy(), deleteOptions)).To(Succeed()) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wait for ConfigMap deletions to be observed before proceeding.
Line 431-438 deletes resources but doesn’t verify they’re gone; this can race with subsequent creates in the same namespace and cause flakes (AlreadyExists/conflicts).
As per coding guidelines, “Operations interacting with clusters must include timeouts” and tests should keep setup/cleanup reliable in BeforeEach/AfterEach.
Suggested fix
existingCMs := &corev1.ConfigMapList{}
Expect(cl.List(ctx, existingCMs, &client.ListOptions{Namespace: targetNamespaceName})).To(Succeed())
for _, cm := range existingCMs.Items {
Expect(cl.Delete(ctx, cm.DeepCopy(), deleteOptions)).To(Succeed())
+ Eventually(func() error {
+ return cl.Get(ctx, client.ObjectKeyFromObject(cm.DeepCopy()), &corev1.ConfigMap{})
+ }, timeout).Should(MatchError(apierrors.IsNotFound, "IsNotFound"))
}🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@pkg/controllers/cloud_config_sync_controller_test.go` around lines 431 - 438,
The code in the deletion loop deletes ConfigMaps but does not wait for the
deletions to be observed before proceeding, which can cause race conditions with
subsequent creates. After the deletion loop that calls cl.Delete() on each
ConfigMap in existingCMs.Items, add an Eventually block that polls to verify all
ConfigMaps have been deleted from the namespace by listing the ConfigMaps again
and confirming the list is empty. This ensures the deletions are fully observed
before the test continues, preventing flaky AlreadyExists or conflict errors.
Source: Coding guidelines
|
@RadekManak: all tests passed! Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. DetailsInstructions 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. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
2 participants
Summary
infra.spec.cloudConfigTest plan
KUBEBUILDER_ASSETS=\"$(pwd)/$(go run ./vendor/sigs.k8s.io/controller-runtime/tools/setup-envtest use 1.33.2 -p path --bin-dir ./bin --index https://raw.githubusercontent.com/openshift/api/master/envtest-releases.yaml)\" go test ./pkg/controllersSummary by CodeRabbit
Bug Fixes
Tests