-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 201
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
Adding GCPMachinePool Functionality #901
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Welcome @BrennenMM7! |
Hi @BrennenMM7. 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 Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the 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. |
@BrennenMM7: Cannot trigger testing until a trusted user reviews the PR and leaves an 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. |
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.
/ok-to-test
/assign @richardcase
thanks for your PR, an initial comments
7187b6d
to
08edce3
Compare
08edce3
to
dbffc56
Compare
45b2b1a
to
caf5243
Compare
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: BrennenMM7 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 |
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all PRs. This bot triages 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 PRs. This bot triages PRs according to the following rules:
You can:
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community. /lifecycle rotten |
89f7d95
to
2836b77
Compare
I've had a chat during the CAPG meeting with @BrennenMM7. @BrennenMM7 and team would like some thoughts on the overall design of the API, mainly from maintainers. /cc. @cpanato @richardcase @dims |
14b660a
to
6f8e1ea
Compare
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. |
@BrennenMM7 this will need a rebase :) |
). | ||
// watch for changes in KubeadmConfig to sync bootstrap token | ||
Watches( | ||
&kubeadmv1.KubeadmConfig{}, |
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.
Would we be able to avoid having to watch KubeadmConfig
? This would prevent anyone enabling MachinePool
from selecting the bootstrap provider of their choice and force them to use Kubeadm. This is something we've realized happens in CAPZ and there's an open issue to address this. Other providers, like CAPA, don't have this dependency on Kubeadm.
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.
A great point @salasberryfin 👍
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.
+1, thanks for catching this!
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.
+1
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.
This is a great point, I'd love to abstract the mechanism away from the kubeadm bootstrap provider lock-in. Any idea how we'd enqueue a reconcile from a token rotation when two different bootstrap providers are being utilized 🤔
need rebase |
4cf6e2b
to
4528f81
Compare
@BrennenMM7: The following tests 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-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
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. |
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-sigs/prow repository. |
/reopen |
@damdo: Reopened 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-sigs/prow repository. |
/remove-lifecycle rotten |
Hey @BrennenMM7. We discussed previously the fact that we do not want to create a Kubeadm dependency, which was an issue with other providers too. I think we can do something similar to what CAPZ did here which decouples the MachinePool reconciler from Kubeadm. What do you think? |
@salasberryfin 👋 Yeah this looks good, I can easily port my changes to support this, I'll update and rebase this PR this week. |
Hey @BrennenMM7, would you be able to update this PR? |
What type of PR is this?
/kind feature
What this PR does / why we need it:
This PR Implements GCPMachinePool using Managed Instance Groups. This is needed to support the CAPI MachinePools object. Feature will allow cluster operators to deploy GCP MIG's to their CAPG clusters to take advantage of both Google Autoscaling of Compute Instances or utilizing cluster autoscaler to dynamically provision node resources.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in
fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)
format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):Fixes #297,#1005
Special notes for your reviewer:
Please confirm that if this PR changes any image versions, then that's the sole change this PR makes.
TODOs:
Release note: