CAS: move DRA consts go into core #8595
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
release-note-none
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: jackfrancis 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 |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
approved
k8s-ci-robot
added
area/cluster-autoscaler
area/provider/gce
size/S
| Name: "nodeGPUViaDra", | ||
| Labels: map[string]string{ | ||
| gce.DraGPULabel: "true", | ||
| gpu.DraGPULabelGKE: "true", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ugh, sorry for missing this part during review. IMO this test code shouldn't depend on anything GCE/GKE-specific. And it in fact doesn't, this test case doesn't really test anything at the moment. The Node is treated as ready because it doesn't have the GPU label that TestCloudProvider.GPULabel() returns, not because it has the DRA enablement label.
I think something like this would be much better (and would actually test the DRA part of the logic):
- Extend
TestCloudProviderto allow configuring the result ofTestCloudProvider.GetNodeGpuConfig()from the test code. - Change this test to configure the result of
TestCloudProvider.GetNodeGpuConfig()differently in different test cases. - Make this one into a test case where the Node does have the
TestCloudProvider.GPULabel()label, and the behavior is different based on the result ofTestCloudProvider.GetNodeGpuConfig()(the Node is ready ifDraDriverNameis set, the Node is not ready ifExtendedResourceNameis set).
WDYT?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
if the DraGPULabelGKE is not required for the test, then i'm in favor of using a more neutral label like something from the test provider. as long as we don't introduce the circular dependency ;)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@jackfrancis Yup, this is exactly what I meant in step 1 - LGTMd the PR!
|
I'm pretty sure we don't want this PR (though we have an interesting thread convo that we should continue!) |
What type of PR is this?
/kind cleanup
What this PR does / why we need it:
By moving the newly added GKE DRA consts to core it enables them to be re-used in customprocessor tests (to help validate the GKE use case) while also accommodating this change to enable cloud providers to inject custom scale down processors: #8583
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?
Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.: