-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.8k
DRA node job update for 1.35 #35425
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
DRA node job update for 1.35 #35425
Conversation
This currently covers skew testing between 1.32 and 1.35.
The node jobs incorrectly used OffByDefault, without actually enabling all off-by-default feature gates. This caused ResourceHealthStatus test to run and fail until that feature gate was explicitly excluded. We don't want to repeat that for every new alpha feature; updating the allow list (= isSubsetOf) is the right approach. Adding a job which includes alpha and beta features follows in a separate commit.
Several reasons: - Testing primarily with cgroup v1 doesn't make sense, it's not recommended anymore. - containerd jobs seem to be slightly faster. - crio image config updates caused job failures a few times.
In contrast to the kind-dra-all job, the new node job enables all feature gates. This is a bit simpler, with the only drawback (for us as DRA developers) that some other alpha or beta feature might cause test failures in DRA tests. For Kubernetes it's good to catch that. The new job is conceptually similar to ci-kubernetes-kind-alpha-beta-features and is names similarly. The new job is not release informing because of the alpha features.
# This job runs the current e2e.test against a cluster where the kubelet is from the "current - 3" release. | ||
# | ||
# It enables and tests the same features as kind-dra. | ||
[kind-dra-n-3] |
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 it make sense to test this new job on canary first?
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.
It's optional. The effect of getting it wrong is therefore minor and the risk is low (we ran the same configuration a short while ago, before they bumped the master version). I think it's fine without doing a canary first.
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
/lgtm
/approve
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: bart0sh, pohly 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 |
@pohly: Updated the
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. |
This includes several different changes, see individual commits.
Replaces #35225
/assign @bart0sh
/cc @ffromani @Jpsassine