Update to CAPI 1.5 #342

hrak · 2024-02-06T15:07:48Z

Issue #, if available:

Description of changes:

This PR updates the cluster-api dependency to v1.5.5. It also updates to Go 1.20, updates golang-ci and addresses lint issues caught by the new version (mostly unused variables in function definitions)

Testing performed:

make test
test with kind

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your choice.

netlify · 2024-02-06T15:08:16Z

✅ Deploy Preview for kubernetes-sigs-cluster-api-cloudstack ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	`3c0fa55`
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/kubernetes-sigs-cluster-api-cloudstack/deploys/66217253e287780008b8b2e8
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-342--kubernetes-sigs-cluster-api-cloudstack.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

codecov-commenter · 2024-02-06T16:03:25Z

Codecov Report

Attention: 37 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (7fd4146) 25.45% compared to head (6838e34) 25.38%.

❗ Current head 6838e34 differs from pull request most recent head dcdf474. Consider uploading reports for the commit dcdf474 to get more accurate results

Files	Patch %	Lines
controllers/cloudstackmachine_controller.go	58.33%	11 Missing and 4 partials ⚠️
controllers/cloudstackcluster_controller.go	37.50%	4 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
api/v1beta3/cloudstackcluster_webhook.go	57.14%	3 Missing ⚠️
api/v1beta3/cloudstackmachine_webhook.go	57.14%	3 Missing ⚠️
api/v1beta3/cloudstackmachinetemplate_webhook.go	57.14%	3 Missing ⚠️
api/v1beta1/conversion.go	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️
api/v1beta1/cloudstackaffinitygroup_conversion.go	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
...pi/v1beta1/cloudstackisolatednetwork_conversion.go	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
api/v1beta1/cloudstackmachine_conversion.go	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
...pi/v1beta1/cloudstackmachinetemplate_conversion.go	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
... and 2 more

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #342      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   25.45%   25.38%   -0.08%     
==========================================
  Files          59       59              
  Lines        5555     5535      -20     
==========================================
- Hits         1414     1405       -9     
+ Misses       4002     3990      -12     
- Partials      139      140       +1

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

rohityadavcloud · 2024-02-08T12:21:34Z

I haven't tested it, but in theory we must upgrade to CAPI 1.5 or whatever may be the latest. I would want to see an easily v0.5 release.

/lgtm

rohityadavcloud · 2024-02-08T12:22:07Z

cc @shwstppr we'll need that CI fixed soon 🙏

g-gaston · 2024-02-08T18:41:20Z

/run-e2e -c 4.18
let's see if we get anything

g-gaston · 2024-02-08T18:41:43Z

/retest

blueorangutan · 2024-02-08T18:42:02Z

@g-gaston Invalid command: /run-e2e -c 4.18
let's see if we get anything

Unsupported CloudStack version: 4.18
let's

The command to run e2e test for CAPC.

Usage: /run-e2e [-k Kubernetes_Version] [-c CloudStack_Version] [-h Hypervisor] [-i Template/Image] [-f Kubernetes_Version_Upgrade_From] [-t Kubernetes_Version_Upgrade_To]

Supported Kubernetes versions are: ['1.27.2', '1.26.5', '1.25.10', '1.24.14', '1.23.3', '1.22.6']. The default value is '1.27.2'.
Supported CloudStack versions are: ['4.18', '4.17', '4.16']. If it is not set, an existing environment will be used.
Supported hypervisors are: ['kvm', 'vmware', 'xen']. The default value is 'kvm'.
Supported templates are: ['ubuntu-2004-kube', 'rockylinux-8-kube']. The default value is 'ubuntu-2004-kube'.
By default it tests Kubernetes upgrade from version '1.26.5' to '1.27.2'.

Examples:

/run-e2e
/run-e2e -k 1.27.2 -h kvm -i ubuntu-2004-kube
/run-e2e -k 1.27.2 -c 4.18 -h kvm -i ubuntu-2004-kube -f 1.26.5 -t 1.27.2

rohityadavcloud · 2024-02-08T18:44:40Z

/run-e2e -c 4.18

blueorangutan · 2024-02-08T18:46:02Z

@rohityadavcloud a jenkins job has been kicked to run test with following paramaters:

kubernetes version: 1.27.2
CloudStack version: 4.18
hypervisor: kvm
template: ubuntu-2004-kube
Kubernetes upgrade from: 1.26.5 to 1.27.2

pokearu · 2024-02-14T09:43:29Z

/test capi-provider-cloudstack-presubmit-e2e-smoke-test

pokearu · 2024-02-16T15:09:47Z

Hi @g-gaston @rohityadavcloud I ran the e2e suit manually to test the CAPI changes. And got a successful run ✅

Not sure why the presubmit is failing, make run-e2e-smoke works for me locally just fine.

rohityadavcloud · 2024-02-16T18:33:48Z

/test capi-provider-cloudstack-presubmit-e2e-smoke-test

rohityadavcloud · 2024-02-16T18:34:35Z

/run-e2e -c 4.18

blueorangutan · 2024-02-16T18:36:02Z

@rohityadavcloud a jenkins job has been kicked to run test with following paramaters:

kubernetes version: 1.27.2
CloudStack version: 4.18
hypervisor: kvm
template: ubuntu-2004-kube
Kubernetes upgrade from: 1.26.5 to 1.27.2

rohityadavcloud · 2024-02-16T18:36:05Z

Thanks for testing @pokearu, @g-gaston @hrak is this ready for merging or need further review/testing? There was also an idea to skip and move to CAPI 1.6 ?

g-gaston · 2024-02-19T20:22:20Z

controllers/cloudstackmachine_controller.go

@@ -182,6 +183,7 @@ func (r *CloudStackMachineReconciliationRunner) SetFailureDomainOnCSMachine() (r
 			name = *r.CAPIMachine.Spec.FailureDomain
 			r.ReconciliationSubject.Spec.FailureDomainName = *r.CAPIMachine.Spec.FailureDomain
 		} else { // Not a control plane machine. Place randomly.
+			rand := rand.New(rand.NewSource(time.Now().Unix()))            // #nosec G404 -- weak crypt rand doesn't matter here.


Nit: should we make this a field in the reconciler? It helps with testing

g-gaston · 2024-02-19T20:23:30Z

controllers/cloudstackmachine_controller.go

 	if err != nil {
+		r.Log.Error(err, "GetOrCreateVMInstance returned error")


Why do we log the error if we are already returning it? Is it being silenced somewhere?

g-gaston · 2024-02-19T20:25:41Z

controllers/cloudstackmachine_controller.go

@@ -298,6 +301,9 @@ func (r *CloudStackMachineReconciliationRunner) AddToLBIfNeeded() (retRes ctrl.R
 // GetOrCreateMachineStateChecker creates or gets CloudStackMachineStateChecker object.
 func (r *CloudStackMachineReconciliationRunner) GetOrCreateMachineStateChecker() (retRes ctrl.Result, reterr error) {
 	checkerName := r.ReconciliationSubject.Spec.InstanceID
+	if checkerName == nil {


This is a good addition. However, i would prefer if we only included in this pr changes that are strictly required for the capi upgrade. Else, it makes very difficult to keep track of the rationale behind changes once the review context of this pr fades away.

g-gaston · 2024-02-19T20:26:08Z

controllers/cloudstackmachine_controller.go

@@ -298,6 +301,9 @@ func (r *CloudStackMachineReconciliationRunner) AddToLBIfNeeded() (retRes ctrl.R
 // GetOrCreateMachineStateChecker creates or gets CloudStackMachineStateChecker object.
 func (r *CloudStackMachineReconciliationRunner) GetOrCreateMachineStateChecker() (retRes ctrl.Result, reterr error) {
 	checkerName := r.ReconciliationSubject.Spec.InstanceID
+	if checkerName == nil {
+		return ctrl.Result{}, errors.New(CSMachineStateCheckerCreationFailed)


Shouldn't we return an error that actually says that instance id is nil?

g-gaston · 2024-02-19T20:30:17Z

controllers/cloudstackmachine_controller.go

 		WithEventFilter(
 			predicate.Funcs{
 				UpdateFunc: func(e event.UpdateEvent) bool {
+					// Avoid reconciling if the event triggering the reconciliation is related to incremental status updates
+					// for CloudStackMachine resources only
+					if _, ok := e.ObjectOld.(*infrav1.CloudStackMachine); !ok {


Is this new code or coming from somewhere else? I can't find it sorry
Asking bc i don't really understand why is this needed

g-gaston · 2024-02-22T01:18:40Z

controllers/utils/base_reconciler.go

+	K8sClient        client.Client
+	CSClient         cloud.Client
+	Recorder         record.EventRecorder
+	WatchFilterValue string


what is this new field for?
if it's not used by the base reconciler, can we put it where it's used?

g-gaston · 2024-02-22T01:20:21Z

controllers/utils/utils.go

+
+// CloudStackClusterToCloudStackMachines is a handler.ToRequestsFunc to be used to enqeue requests for reconciliation
+// of CloudStackMachines.
+func CloudStackClusterToCloudStackMachines(c client.Client, obj runtime.Object, scheme *runtime.Scheme, log logr.Logger) (handler.MapFunc, error) {


can we add unit test for these 2 new methods?

rohityadavcloud · 2024-03-22T14:26:58Z

Hi @hrak - @g-gaston has advised me to try to get this PR in the next release, could you help rebase/address conflicts and any outstanding review remarks? Thanks.

chrisdoherty4 · 2024-04-01T00:40:33Z

/uncc @chrisdoherty4

k8s-ci-robot · 2024-04-18T19:08:52Z

New changes are detected. LGTM label has been removed.

Signed-off-by: Hans Rakers <h.rakers@global.leaseweb.com>

hrak · 2024-04-18T19:20:26Z

PR updated for CAPI v1.5.8. Sorry for the delay.

vishesh92 · 2024-05-20T09:18:21Z

controllers/cloudstackmachine_controller.go

+	if err != nil {
+		return errors.Wrap(err, "failed to create CloudStackClusterToCloudStackMachines mapper")
+	}
+	//requeueCloudStackMachinesForUnpausedCluster := reconciler.requeueCloudStackMachinesForUnpausedCluster(ctx)


Remove commented code.

vishesh92 · 2024-05-20T09:21:42Z

@hrak there are some unresolved comments by @g-gaston. Can you please address/resolve them?

k8s-ci-robot · 2024-05-24T00:16:04Z

PR needs rebase.

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.

vishesh92 · 2024-05-31T20:18:30Z

This PR has some conflicts and some comments needs to be addressed/resolved. Changing milestone for this PR to v0.6.0 for now.

hrak · 2024-07-08T13:09:10Z

Hi, I'm sorry I haven't been able to dedicate much time on this lately cause I'm swamped in launching our k8s product at work. I will update the PR when i have some time.

k8s-triage-robot · 2024-10-06T13:53:22Z

The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all PRs.

This bot triages PRs according to the following rules:

After 90d of inactivity, lifecycle/stale is applied
After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/stale was applied, lifecycle/rotten is applied
After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/rotten was applied, the PR is closed

You can:

Mark this PR as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale
Close this PR with /close
Offer to help out with Issue Triage

Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.

/lifecycle stale

k8s-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Feb 6, 2024

k8s-ci-robot requested review from chrisdoherty4 and davidjumani February 6, 2024 15:07

hrak marked this pull request as draft February 6, 2024 15:07

k8s-ci-robot added cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files. labels Feb 6, 2024

hrak force-pushed the capi15 branch from dcdf474 to 464b49d Compare February 6, 2024 16:15

hrak marked this pull request as ready for review February 7, 2024 09:25

k8s-ci-robot requested review from dims and vishesh92 February 7, 2024 09:25

hrak changed the title ~~[WIP] Update to CAPI 1.5~~ Update to CAPI 1.5 Feb 7, 2024

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 Feb 7, 2024

k8s-ci-robot assigned rohityadavcloud Feb 8, 2024

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Feb 8, 2024

k8s-ci-robot removed the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Feb 16, 2024

g-gaston reviewed Feb 22, 2024

View reviewed changes

rohityadavcloud added the release:must-have label Mar 22, 2024

rohityadavcloud added this to the v0.5.0 milestone Mar 22, 2024

rohityadavcloud linked an issue Mar 22, 2024 that may be closed by this pull request

CAPI v1.5.0-beta.0 has been released and is ready for testing #285

Open

k8s-ci-robot removed the request for review from chrisdoherty4 April 1, 2024 00:40

hrak force-pushed the capi15 branch from b584b42 to 55254ee Compare April 18, 2024 19:08

k8s-ci-robot removed the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Apr 18, 2024

hrak and others added 6 commits April 18, 2024 21:19

Update to CAPI 1.5

34a1d57

Signed-off-by: Hans Rakers <h.rakers@global.leaseweb.com>

Update golangci-lint to v1.53.3

ee79a39

Signed-off-by: Hans Rakers <h.rakers@global.leaseweb.com>

Lint fixes

bc2ed83

Signed-off-by: Hans Rakers <h.rakers@global.leaseweb.com>

Update Github/Netlify CI for Go 1.20

acb7b57

Signed-off-by: Hans Rakers <h.rakers@global.leaseweb.com>

Fix typo

218ad98

Signed-off-by: Hans Rakers <h.rakers@global.leaseweb.com>

Bump kind to v0.20.0

3c0fa55

hrak force-pushed the capi15 branch from 55254ee to 3c0fa55 Compare April 18, 2024 19:19

k8s-ci-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Apr 18, 2024

vishesh92 reviewed May 20, 2024

View reviewed changes

rohityadavcloud assigned vishesh92 May 20, 2024

k8s-ci-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label May 24, 2024

vishesh92 modified the milestones: v0.5.0, v0.6 May 31, 2024

k8s-ci-robot added the lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. label Oct 6, 2024

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Update to CAPI 1.5 #342

Update to CAPI 1.5 #342

hrak commented Feb 6, 2024

netlify bot commented Feb 6, 2024 •

edited

Loading

codecov-commenter commented Feb 6, 2024

rohityadavcloud commented Feb 8, 2024

rohityadavcloud commented Feb 8, 2024

g-gaston commented Feb 8, 2024

g-gaston commented Feb 8, 2024

blueorangutan commented Feb 8, 2024

rohityadavcloud commented Feb 8, 2024

blueorangutan commented Feb 8, 2024

pokearu commented Feb 14, 2024

pokearu commented Feb 16, 2024

rohityadavcloud commented Feb 16, 2024

rohityadavcloud commented Feb 16, 2024

blueorangutan commented Feb 16, 2024

rohityadavcloud commented Feb 16, 2024

g-gaston Feb 19, 2024

g-gaston Feb 19, 2024

g-gaston Feb 19, 2024

g-gaston Feb 19, 2024

g-gaston Feb 19, 2024

g-gaston Feb 22, 2024

g-gaston Feb 22, 2024

rohityadavcloud commented Mar 22, 2024

chrisdoherty4 commented Apr 1, 2024

k8s-ci-robot commented Apr 18, 2024

hrak commented Apr 18, 2024 •

edited

Loading

vishesh92 May 20, 2024

vishesh92 commented May 20, 2024

k8s-ci-robot commented May 24, 2024

vishesh92 commented May 31, 2024

hrak commented Jul 8, 2024

k8s-triage-robot commented Oct 6, 2024

		if err != nil {
		r.Log.Error(err, "GetOrCreateVMInstance returned error")

Update to CAPI 1.5 #342

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Update to CAPI 1.5 #342

Conversation

hrak commented Feb 6, 2024

netlify bot commented Feb 6, 2024 • edited Loading

✅ Deploy Preview for kubernetes-sigs-cluster-api-cloudstack ready!

codecov-commenter commented Feb 6, 2024

Codecov Report

rohityadavcloud commented Feb 8, 2024

rohityadavcloud commented Feb 8, 2024

g-gaston commented Feb 8, 2024

g-gaston commented Feb 8, 2024

blueorangutan commented Feb 8, 2024

rohityadavcloud commented Feb 8, 2024

blueorangutan commented Feb 8, 2024

pokearu commented Feb 14, 2024

pokearu commented Feb 16, 2024

rohityadavcloud commented Feb 16, 2024

rohityadavcloud commented Feb 16, 2024

blueorangutan commented Feb 16, 2024

rohityadavcloud commented Feb 16, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

rohityadavcloud commented Mar 22, 2024

chrisdoherty4 commented Apr 1, 2024

k8s-ci-robot commented Apr 18, 2024

hrak commented Apr 18, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

vishesh92 commented May 20, 2024

k8s-ci-robot commented May 24, 2024

vishesh92 commented May 31, 2024

hrak commented Jul 8, 2024

k8s-triage-robot commented Oct 6, 2024

netlify bot commented Feb 6, 2024 •

edited

Loading

hrak commented Apr 18, 2024 •

edited

Loading