server: return already created ID for duplicated requests #6123

haircommander · 2022-08-03T20:08:41Z

turns out, kubelet does behave like this in some scenerios (static
pods). Instead of failing forever, return the already created pod.

Signed-off-by: Peter Hunt [email protected]

What type of PR is this?

/kind bug

What this PR does / why we need it:

alternative to #6111

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

Fix a bug where static pods cannot be created because they've already been created.

codecov · 2022-08-03T20:21:27Z

Codecov Report

Merging #6123 (24304da) into main (12aacc3) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 0.00%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #6123   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   43.62%   43.62%           
=======================================
  Files         122      122           
  Lines       13583    13583           
=======================================
  Hits         5926     5926           
  Misses       7017     7017           
  Partials      640      640

saschagrunert

/lgtm
/hold
Feel free to unhold if this is ready to be merged.

saschagrunert · 2022-08-04T07:51:59Z

/retest

haircommander · 2022-08-18T13:28:00Z

/hold cancel

openshift-bot · 2022-08-18T13:29:25Z

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2022-08-18T13:42:24Z

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2022-08-18T13:55:24Z

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2022-08-18T14:08:24Z

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2022-08-18T14:21:25Z

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2022-08-18T14:34:23Z

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2022-08-18T14:47:24Z

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2022-08-18T15:00:27Z

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2022-08-18T15:13:28Z

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2022-08-18T15:26:24Z

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2022-08-18T15:39:24Z

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2022-08-25T18:14:04Z

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2022-08-25T18:27:06Z

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2022-08-25T18:40:04Z

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2022-08-25T18:53:05Z

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

haircommander · 2022-08-25T18:53:29Z

/hold

I can't figure out why just kata is failing

@littlejawa do you have any insight?

TomSweeneyRedHat

LGTM
once the tests are hapy

littlejawa · 2022-08-26T08:13:04Z

/hold

I can't figure out why just kata is failing

@littlejawa do you have any insight?

Hey @haircommander,
I am not sure, but I think you're finding that this test (shm_size.bats : "check /dev/shm fails with incorrect values") actually never worked the way we thought with kata.
It is using the helpers.bat function create_runtime_with_allowed_annotation, and it seems we are skipping all the tests that use this function in kata because they fail - I suspect a bad interaction between this function, which changes the default runtime, and our test framework that makes sure kata is being used.
I am not sure that in the kata CI job, create_runtime_with_allowed_annotation actually changes the runtime being used by cri-o, and so the annotations are just not set.

The reason why we were not skipping this specific test is because it seemed to work, but looking at it, it is checking for failures, and doesn't verify the reason of the failure. So I am guessing that it was failing up to now because annotations were just not taken into account, and this made the test "pass", for the wrong reasons.

I am not sure why it changed its behavior now, but apparently your change makes the second call to crictl runp find an existing pod and returning it (this is what the cri-o log show), ignoring the potential issue with annotation, and so reporting success?
I don't know why the pod is still around at that time though.

Anyway - TL;DR: I think you should ignore this error, and I will modify our test script to skip this test, until we fix the function in question.

littlejawa · 2022-08-29T21:09:14Z

/retest-required

haircommander · 2022-08-30T13:37:12Z

/hold cancel

openshift-bot · 2022-08-30T13:38:08Z

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

haircommander · 2022-08-30T13:38:32Z

/hold

actually, ci is broken at the moment, let's wait till it's ready

saschagrunert · 2022-09-14T14:55:20Z

@haircommander can you please rebase that we can merge it soon'ish?

turns out, kubelet does behave like this in some scenerios (static pods). Instead of failing forever, return the already created pod. Signed-off-by: Peter Hunt <[email protected]>

haircommander · 2022-09-14T15:02:19Z

reabsed
/hold cancel

openshift-ci · 2022-09-15T06:57:53Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: haircommander, saschagrunert

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

The pull request process is described here

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

~~OWNERS~~ [haircommander,saschagrunert]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

saschagrunert · 2022-09-21T07:15:47Z

/cherry-pick release-1.25

openshift-cherrypick-robot · 2022-09-21T07:16:42Z

@saschagrunert: new pull request created: #6241

Details

In response to this:

/cherry-pick release-1.25

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.

haircommander requested review from mrunalp and runcom as code owners August 3, 2022 20:08

openshift-ci bot added release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug. dco-signoff: yes Indicates the PR's author has DCO signed all their commits. labels Aug 3, 2022

openshift-ci bot requested review from QiWang19 and klihub August 3, 2022 20:08

openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Aug 3, 2022

haircommander force-pushed the dup-request-return branch 2 times, most recently from d44b5f0 to dc81cff Compare August 3, 2022 20:11

saschagrunert approved these changes Aug 4, 2022

View reviewed changes

openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Aug 4, 2022

openshift-ci bot assigned saschagrunert Aug 4, 2022

openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Aug 4, 2022

saschagrunert mentioned this pull request Aug 4, 2022

WIP: Revert "server: properly handle duplicate requests" #6111

Closed

openshift-ci bot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Aug 18, 2022

openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Aug 25, 2022

TomSweeneyRedHat reviewed Aug 25, 2022

View reviewed changes

This was referenced Aug 26, 2022

test: helper.bats functions 'create_runtime_with_allowed_annotation' is not taken into account #6175

Closed

Skip test from kata/cri-o CI that use the create_runtime_with_allowed_annotation helper function kata-containers/tests#5071

Closed

openshift-ci bot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Aug 30, 2022

openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Aug 30, 2022

server: return already created ID for duplicated requests

24304da

turns out, kubelet does behave like this in some scenerios (static pods). Instead of failing forever, return the already created pod. Signed-off-by: Peter Hunt <[email protected]>

haircommander force-pushed the dup-request-return branch from 276e0c9 to 24304da Compare September 14, 2022 15:02

openshift-ci bot removed lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. labels Sep 14, 2022

saschagrunert approved these changes Sep 15, 2022

View reviewed changes

openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Sep 15, 2022

openshift-merge-robot merged commit a05656a into cri-o:main Sep 15, 2022

openshift-cherrypick-robot mentioned this pull request Sep 21, 2022

[release-1.25] server: return already created ID for duplicated requests #6241

Merged

littlejawa mentioned this pull request Jan 26, 2023

REQUEST: New reviewer status for littlejawa #6578

Closed

4 tasks

server: return already created ID for duplicated requests #6123

server: return already created ID for duplicated requests #6123

Uh oh!

Conversation

haircommander commented Aug 3, 2022

What type of PR is this?

What this PR does / why we need it:

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Aug 3, 2022 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

saschagrunert left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

saschagrunert commented Aug 4, 2022

Uh oh!

haircommander commented Aug 18, 2022

Uh oh!

openshift-bot commented Aug 18, 2022

Uh oh!

openshift-bot commented Aug 18, 2022

Uh oh!

openshift-bot commented Aug 18, 2022

Uh oh!

openshift-bot commented Aug 18, 2022

Uh oh!

openshift-bot commented Aug 18, 2022

Uh oh!

openshift-bot commented Aug 18, 2022

Uh oh!

openshift-bot commented Aug 18, 2022

Uh oh!

openshift-bot commented Aug 18, 2022

Uh oh!

openshift-bot commented Aug 18, 2022

Uh oh!

openshift-bot commented Aug 18, 2022

Uh oh!

openshift-bot commented Aug 18, 2022

Uh oh!

openshift-bot commented Aug 25, 2022

Uh oh!

openshift-bot commented Aug 25, 2022

Uh oh!

openshift-bot commented Aug 25, 2022

Uh oh!

openshift-bot commented Aug 25, 2022

Uh oh!

haircommander commented Aug 25, 2022

Uh oh!

TomSweeneyRedHat left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

littlejawa commented Aug 26, 2022

Uh oh!

littlejawa commented Aug 29, 2022

Uh oh!

haircommander commented Aug 30, 2022

Uh oh!

openshift-bot commented Aug 30, 2022

Uh oh!

haircommander commented Aug 30, 2022

Uh oh!

saschagrunert commented Sep 14, 2022

Uh oh!

haircommander commented Sep 14, 2022

Uh oh!

openshift-ci bot commented Sep 15, 2022

Uh oh!

saschagrunert commented Sep 21, 2022

Uh oh!

openshift-cherrypick-robot commented Sep 21, 2022

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

codecov bot commented Aug 3, 2022 •

edited

Loading