Skip to content

✨ Add DefaultInstanceWarmup field to AWSMachineDeployment spec #4760

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 2 commits into from
Feb 7, 2024
Merged

✨ Add DefaultInstanceWarmup field to AWSMachineDeployment spec #4760

merged 2 commits into from
Feb 7, 2024

Conversation

mnitchev
Copy link
Contributor

What type of PR is this?

/kind feature

What this PR does / why we need it:

There already is an exposed option for RestartInstanceRefresh, so it makes sense to have one setting the default instance warmup on CreateAutoScalingGroup, similar to the DefaultCoolDown.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):
N/A

Special notes for your reviewer:
I wasn't sure if it should be added to both v1beta1 and v1beta2, but the fuzzing tests fail if it isn't in both.

Checklist:

  • squashed commits
  • includes documentation
  • includes emojis
  • adds unit tests
  • adds or updates e2e tests

Release note:

Add `DefaultInstanceWarmup` field to `AWSMachineDeployment` spec

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. labels Jan 25, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @mnitchev. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

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.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Jan 25, 2024
@AndiDog
Copy link
Contributor

AndiDog commented Jan 25, 2024

/ok-to-test

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. and removed needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Jan 25, 2024
AndiDog
AndiDog reviewed Jan 25, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@AndiDog AndiDog left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm

Probably we can run E2E tests once it's confirmed that they're working again (I have trouble with them in other PRs; chat).

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 25, 2024
Ankitasw
Ankitasw reviewed Jan 29, 2024
View reviewed changes
exp/api/v1beta1/awsmachinepool_types.go Outdated
@@ -76,6 +76,13 @@ type AWSMachinePoolSpec struct {
// +optional
DefaultCoolDown metav1.Duration `json:"defaultCoolDown,omitempty"`

// The amount of time, in seconds, until a new instance is considered to
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Its not required to add it in v1beta1 API, we have to fix the failing fuzz tests, PTAL at some other pRs where we are adding a new field and handling the tests.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I've removed it and fixed the test. Can you please check if I did it correctly?

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. and removed lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. labels Jan 31, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jan 31, 2024
@mnitchev mnitchev requested a review from Ankitasw January 31, 2024 08:38
@Ankitasw Ankitasw added the tide/merge-method-squash Denotes a PR that should be squashed by tide when it merges. label Jan 31, 2024
@Ankitasw
Copy link
Member

/test pull-cluster-api-provider-aws-e2e
/test pull-cluster-api-provider-aws-e2e-eks

@Ankitasw
Copy link
Member

Ankitasw commented Jan 31, 2024 •
edited
Loading

/hold
/lgtm
/approve

@mnitchev feel free to unhold when tests passes

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Jan 31, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 31, 2024
@Ankitasw Ankitasw added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Jan 31, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

Approval requirements bypassed by manually added approval.

This pull-request has been approved by:

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

AndiDog
AndiDog reviewed Jan 31, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@AndiDog AndiDog left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm

@AndiDog
Copy link
Contributor

AndiDog commented Jan 31, 2024

Let's try again

/test pull-cluster-api-provider-aws-e2e-eks

@AndiDog
Copy link
Contributor

AndiDog commented Feb 1, 2024

@Ankitasw Do you have an idea why the EKS test might be failing, or how to investigate it (such as, getting CAPA logs for the failed test case)? This change shouldn't have an effect on EKS, I guess, and it seems working with EKS in our fork.

@Ankitasw
Copy link
Member

Ankitasw commented Feb 2, 2024

I think the failure is unrelated to this PR, its failing in the CI from 2 3 days.

@Ankitasw
Copy link
Member

Ankitasw commented Feb 2, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Controller logs can be checked here: https://gcsweb.k8s.io/gcs/kubernetes-jenkins/pr-logs/pull/kubernetes-sigs_cluster-api-provider-aws/4760/pull-cluster-api-provider-aws-e2e-eks/1752784413621489664/artifacts/clusters/bootstrap/controllers/
If you open above test failure link, artifacts tab contains all folders related to CRs and logs

@Ankitasw
Copy link
Member

Ankitasw commented Feb 5, 2024

/test pull-cluster-api-provider-aws-e2e-eks

@mnitchev
Copy link
Contributor Author

mnitchev commented Feb 7, 2024

Thanks! Everything looks good now

@mnitchev
Copy link
Contributor Author

mnitchev commented Feb 7, 2024

/unhold

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Feb 7, 2024
@mnitchev
Copy link
Contributor Author

mnitchev commented Feb 7, 2024

/retest

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit ff8cb13 into kubernetes-sigs:main Feb 7, 2024
@mnitchev mnitchev deleted the pr-instance-warmup branch February 7, 2024 09:32
@mnitchev mnitchev mentioned this pull request Feb 7, 2024
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@AndiDog AndiDog AndiDog left review comments

@cnmcavoy cnmcavoy Awaiting requested review from cnmcavoy

@richardcase richardcase Awaiting requested review from richardcase

@Ankitasw Ankitasw Awaiting requested review from Ankitasw

Assignees

@AndiDog AndiDog

@Ankitasw Ankitasw

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. kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. needs-priority 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/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. tide/merge-method-squash Denotes a PR that should be squashed by tide when it merges.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@mnitchev @k8s-ci-robot @AndiDog @Ankitasw