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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Fix cAdvisorPort, 0 is a valid option #46876

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 6, 2017
Merged

Fix cAdvisorPort, 0 is a valid option #46876

merged 1 commit into from
Jun 6, 2017

Conversation

mtaufen
Copy link
Contributor

@mtaufen mtaufen commented Jun 2, 2017 •
edited
Loading

wrt #11710, this maintains the current default if nobody provides the flag, but allows explicitly passing 0.

/cc @farcaller @vishh @liggitt @antoineco @philips
/assign @liggitt @vishh

Fixes a bug with cAdvisorPort in the KubeletConfiguration that prevented setting it to 0, which is in fact a valid option, as noted in issue #11710.

@mtaufen mtaufen added area/kubelet kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug. sig/node Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Node. labels Jun 2, 2017
@mtaufen mtaufen added this to the v1.7 milestone Jun 2, 2017
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. label Jun 2, 2017
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@mtaufen: GitHub didn't allow me to request PR reviews from the following users: antoineco, farcaller.

Note that only kubernetes members can review this PR, and authors cannot review their own PRs.

In response to this:

wrt #11710, this maintains the current default if nobody provides the flag, but allows explicitly passing 0.

/cc @farcaller @vishh @liggitt @antoineco @philips
/assign @liggitt @vishh

Fixes a bug with --cadvisor-port that prevented passing 0, which is in fact a valid option, as noted in issue #11710.

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/test-infra repository.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot requested a review from vishh June 2, 2017 19:11
@k8s-github-robot k8s-github-robot added approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. kind/api-change Categorizes issue or PR as related to adding, removing, or otherwise changing an API size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. labels Jun 2, 2017
@vishh
Copy link
Contributor

vishh commented Jun 2, 2017

/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jun 2, 2017
@k8s-github-robot
Copy link

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: mtaufen, vishh

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these OWNERS Files:

You can indicate your approval by writing /approve in a comment
You can cancel your approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@antoineco
Copy link
Contributor

I was certain I didn't see any warning when starting kubelet with that option, is 1.6.4 affected? (can't check, on a mobile)

@mtaufen
Copy link
Contributor Author

mtaufen commented Jun 2, 2017

Flags layer on top after this defaulting step, so there's something else funny going on if you still aren't able to override with 0 via a flag.

@antoineco
Copy link
Contributor

I mean, passing 0 to that flag already disables the cAdvisor service on kube 1.6.4 (which seems strange after looking at your commit).

In which situation did you hit that bug? How can you reproduce? Just curious.

@mtaufen
Copy link
Contributor Author

mtaufen commented Jun 2, 2017

You'd hit it if you were just pulling config directly out of a KubeletConfiguration object without flags; e.g. dynamic config. I didn't personally encounter this, but it's obviously a bug so it makes sense to fix it.

@mtaufen
Copy link
Contributor Author

mtaufen commented Jun 2, 2017

It seemed like people in #11710 were having trouble with the flag though.

@antoineco
Copy link
Contributor

Ah right, makes sense, good that you spotted it 👏

@dchen1107
Copy link
Member

The release team bug triage notes: The pr was approved after the code freeze because it indeed fixed a regression issue in 1.7 release based on the discuss at #11710 (comment)

cc/ @marun

@k8s-github-robot k8s-github-robot removed the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jun 2, 2017
@mtaufen
Copy link
Contributor Author

mtaufen commented Jun 2, 2017

re-adding label

@mtaufen mtaufen added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jun 2, 2017
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

k8s-ci-robot commented Jun 5, 2017 •
edited
Loading

@mtaufen: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun them all:

Test name Commit Details Rerun command
pull-kubernetes-federation-e2e-gce ca21da4 link @k8s-bot pull-kubernetes-federation-e2e-gce test this

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/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

@mtaufen
Copy link
Contributor Author

mtaufen commented Jun 5, 2017

@k8s-bot pull-kubernetes-federation-e2e-gce test this

@k8s-github-robot
Copy link

Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 46787, 46876, 46621, 46907, 46819)

@k8s-github-robot k8s-github-robot merged commit f68575f into kubernetes:master Jun 6, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@vishh vishh vishh approved these changes

@liggitt liggitt Awaiting requested review from liggitt

@philips philips Awaiting requested review from philips

Assignees

@liggitt liggitt

@vishh vishh

Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. area/kubelet cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. kind/api-change Categorizes issue or PR as related to adding, removing, or otherwise changing an API kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. sig/node Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Node. size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
v1.7
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
7 participants
@mtaufen @k8s-ci-robot @vishh @k8s-github-robot @antoineco @dchen1107 @liggitt