Skip to content
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

chore: backport latest VMs pool, HasInstance(), cloud-provider-azure defork, misc inconsistencies, for 1.27 #7218

Conversation

comtalyst
Copy link
Contributor

@comtalyst comtalyst commented Aug 28, 2024

What type of PR is this?

/kind cleanup

What this PR does / why we need it:

These differences have effectively disabled cherry-pick automation in these areas. Upcoming changes (e.g., more VMs pool implementation, cloud-provider-azure integration rework, more fixes that need to be done in all versions) will be agonizing experiences, not to mention the past ones.
This PR will amend some of those differences, which is mostly VMs pool and HasInstance() implementations. They cannot be cherry-picked in normal means easily due to conflict with Azure defork operations, which have to resolve these conflicts at some point anyway. In addition, VMs pool and cloud-provider-azure are required to be cherry-picked.

Some of the inconsistencies are that older versions (1.27, 1.28) have went through linter. This PR might undo that and result in a temporary decrement in quality. However, the trade-off we get is consistency, and has been decided to be worth it. Then all branches will go through linter at the same time later on.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Special notes for your reviewer:

Original HasInstance() implementation PR: #6956
Original cloud-provider-azure defork PR: #6947

The first half of the commits are basically copy-pasting code from 1.29 while trying to keep differences in features (e.g., vmTypeAKS support that is deprecated from 1.29 and beyond, differences in provisioning states handling). Given that 1.29 is already matured, it is reliable enough.
The second half of the commits are cherry-pick of cloud-provider-azure defork, with some modifications to support this version (e.g., use cloud-provider-azure v1.27, replacement for nonexistent MaxDeploymentsCount and KubernetesRateLimit for VMAS and AKS pools respectively, alternative function to support workload identity when cloud-provider-azure still don't support it #5390). Verified that this cloud-provider-azure version has support for AADClientCert.

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?


Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.:


@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added kind/cleanup Categorizes issue or PR as related to cleaning up code, process, or technical debt. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. labels Aug 28, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added area/provider/azure Issues or PRs related to azure provider size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files. labels Aug 28, 2024
@comtalyst comtalyst changed the title chore: backport latest VMs pool, HasInstance() implementations, misc inconsistencies, for 1.27 chore: backport latest VMs pool, HasInstance(), cloud-provider-azure defork, misc inconsistencies, for 1.27 Aug 28, 2024
@comtalyst
Copy link
Contributor Author

/label tide/merge-method-squash
/hold

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. tide/merge-method-squash Denotes a PR that should be squashed by tide when it merges. labels Aug 28, 2024
@comtalyst comtalyst force-pushed the comtalyst/backport-things-1.27 branch from ee8938b to 2b8881b Compare August 28, 2024 09:00
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@comtalyst: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name Commit Details Required Rerun command
pull-cluster-autoscaler-e2e-azure 2b8881b link false /test pull-cluster-autoscaler-e2e-azure

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.

Copy link
Member

@Bryce-Soghigian Bryce-Soghigian left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/approve
/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Aug 28, 2024
@feiskyer
Copy link
Member

/approve

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: Bryce-Soghigian, comtalyst, feiskyer

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 Aug 29, 2024
@comtalyst
Copy link
Contributor Author

/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 Aug 29, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit f9d3bf1 into kubernetes:cluster-autoscaler-release-1.27 Aug 29, 2024
6 of 7 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. area/provider/azure Issues or PRs related to azure provider cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. kind/cleanup Categorizes issue or PR as related to cleaning up code, process, or technical debt. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files. tide/merge-method-squash Denotes a PR that should be squashed by tide when it merges.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants