Skip to content

kata installation should not watch the 'worker' MCP state #596

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

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Apr 10, 2025

Conversation

pmores
Copy link
Contributor

@pmores pmores commented Apr 2, 2025

When the MCO migrates nodes between pools, the target pool enters the Updating state and has nodes gradually added to it as they are updated and rebooted while the source pool is drained by simply setting its machine count to the desired value at once and never leaves the Updated state.

Because the "worker" pool is the source pool in kata installation, it follows that nothing can be gained by watching its status.

Normally it doesn't hurt either but if "worker" is Updating already for some unrelated reason when kata installation is starting, it throws off the isInstallationInProgress detection and thus the whole installation flow.

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot requested review from snir911 and vvoronko April 2, 2025 16:23
When the MCO migrates nodes between pools, the target pool enters the
Updating state and has nodes gradually added to it as they are updated and
rebooted while the source pool is drained by simply setting its machine
count to the desired value at once and never leaves the Updated state.

Because the "worker" pool is the source pool in kata installation, it
follows that nothing can be gained by watching its status.

Normally it doesn't hurt either but if "worker" is Updating already for
some unrelated reason when kata installation is starting, it throws off
the isInstallationInProgress detection and thus the whole installation
flow.

Signed-off-by: Pavel Mores <[email protected]>
@pmores pmores force-pushed the kata-install-should-ignore-worker branch from f1e3476 to d37eebc Compare April 2, 2025 16:45
Copy link
Member

@gkurz gkurz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The proposed change looks sane and will prevent the rest of the installation flow to be triggered because of external factors.

The extra simplifications that I suggest can be discussed and addressed by this PR but this isn't a strong requirement, so I'm approving right away.

Thanks @pmores !

Previous commit removed the only reason for the 'isKataMcpUpdating'
variable to exist.  'isMcoUpdating's value was previously acquired in two
stages and 'isKataMcpUpdating' was a name for one of them.  Now there's
just a single stage left so we remove the variable.

'isInstallationInProgress' is only used at a single place as well but we
keep the variable since it gives an explicit name to the actual meaning
of the 'isMcpUpdating()' check which could otherwise seem non-obvious.  We
just move the variable close to its only place of use.

Signed-off-by: Pavel Mores <[email protected]>
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Apr 4, 2025

@pmores: all tests passed!

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

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

@gkurz gkurz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm

Thanks for the new changes @pmores !

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Apr 7, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@bpradipt bpradipt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm

@bpradipt bpradipt merged commit 343e809 into openshift:devel Apr 10, 2025
6 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants