-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 635
🐛 Reconcile target groups and listeners as their own entities #5004
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
Changes from 5 commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
16a6004
Reconcile target groups and listeners separately
nrb 0991311
Look up existing target groups and listeners
nrb 158fc75
Update unit tests for target groups and listeners
nrb a49371d
Fix linting issues
nrb 34edeed
Correct arguments and clarify var names
nrb cc2cfe4
Remove incorrect optimization and fixup tests
nrb File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
Could we add a comment on why this is necessary? Is this an optimization?
Also is this condition always a guarantee there is nothing to do?
Especially looking at, could there be a case where the count is off and doing
g.TargetGroupName == ln.TargetGroup.Namenaming matching would be better?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.
Yeah, it was an attempt to optimize so we don't go through the full loop every time.
Matching on the name might be better. I suppose it's possible that a user could create more target groups in AWS than CAPA knows about, though I'm not sure why they'd do that.
In any case, if we check that the target group names line up between AWS and our spec, we're still repeating the loop every time. The main benefit there would be that we could potentially skip doing more API calls within a single iteration.
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.
One reason we saw the LB creation fail was because of API call rate limiting in very busy envs, so avoiding extra calls when possible would be nice.
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.
Thinking this through some more, I think the only numeric comparison we can do that's valid all the time is
if len(existingTargetGroups) < len(desiredTargetGroups) { reconcile }. Even if the lists are equal in length, it doesn't guarantee that they're the exact same names.I'll look through this and see if I can do any further optimizations, but I'll at least remove this length check.
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.
Thanks for the productive back-and-forth here.
Please consider a future PR for optimizations, because this PR is already complex (although the new tests are very helpful, they themselves are complex). 🙏