Add ServiceSpec to FunctionSpec #397

phsiao · 2017-10-28T14:25:56Z

Add ServiceSpec to FunctionSpec so it can support creating Service with customizations.

ServiceSpec contains headless (boolean) and port (integer).

I have not updated the controller yet to take advantage of this, but want to run it by the reviewers first.

Ready to review
Automated Tests
Docs

andresmgot

Thank you for the PR! I set some comments inline. Once you apply them you can continue with the support in the Controller.

andresmgot · 2017-10-30T10:13:44Z

cmd/kubeless/function.go

 			Deps:     deps,
 			Topic:    topic,
 			Schedule: schedule,
+			Service: spec.ServiceSpec{


in case the user is updating the file these new flags may be unspecified. For not overwriting the previous behavior you need to set the default the defaultFunction (just like with the other parameters)

andresmgot · 2017-10-30T10:14:46Z

cmd/kubeless/function_test.go


 	// Given parameters should take precedence from default values
-	result3, err := getFunctionDescription("test", "default", "file.handler2", "function2", "dependencies2", "runtime2", "test_topic", "", "test-image2", "256Mi", false, []string{"TEST=2"}, []string{"test=2"}, expectedFunction)
+	result3, err := getFunctionDescription("test", "default", "file.handler2", "function2", "dependencies2", "runtime2", "test_topic", "", "test-image2", "256Mi", false, false, 8080, []string{"TEST=2"}, []string{"test=2"}, expectedFunction)


change the values so we check that the new parameters are persisted/overwritten by the default/new function.

andresmgot · 2017-10-30T10:30:29Z

cmd/kubeless/update.go

 	updateCmd.Flags().StringP("schedule", "", "", "Specify schedule in cron format for scheduled function")
 	updateCmd.Flags().Bool("trigger-http", false, "Deploy a http-based function to Kubeless")
 	updateCmd.Flags().StringP("runtime-image", "", "", "Custom runtime image")
+	updateCmd.Flags().Bool("headless", false, "Deploy the function as a headless service")


I would disable the headless parameter for the update command or make a function that actually checks if the value has been set (it is doable going over the provided parameters with the flag.Visit function). Since it is a boolean, it is difficult to say if the user wants to update its value to false or if the flag is missing.
Also I would set here the default value of the port to -1 or something like that to differentiate the intention of the user (and not use it if the value is the default).

andresmgot · 2017-10-30T10:31:47Z

pkg/spec/spec.go


+// ServiceSpec contains service specification for a FunctionSpec
+type ServiceSpec struct {
+	Headless bool `json:"headless"`


can you add a small inline comment explaining what is the purpose of each field? (I am doing the same for the FunctionSpec in other PR)

phsiao · 2017-10-30T15:13:40Z

Thanks @andresmgot, I will work on addressing these feedbacks.

andresmgot · 2017-11-02T10:12:08Z

Thanks @phsiao, the CLI code looks good for me. Let me know if you have any issue applying the changes in the controller

phsiao · 2017-11-05T14:54:42Z

Failed in

# (from function `verify_function' in file tests/../script/libtest.bash, line 268,
#  from function `test_kubeless_function' in file tests/../script/libtest.bash, line 273,
#  in test file tests/integration-tests.bats, line 72)
#   `test_kubeless_function post-dotnetcore' failed with status 2
# make[1]: *** [post-dotnetcore-verify] Error 1

Ironically, the dotnetcore image is the one that I has not touched to add support for customized port. Is there a way to get more details of the error?

phsiao · 2017-11-06T22:28:13Z

Marking it WIP, trying to figure out how to make CreateIngress and its tests play well in the test sandbox environment.

ngtuna · 2017-11-08T03:59:17Z

@phsiao @andresmgot Just a suggestion: I would prefer to embed the whole official v1.ServiceSpec into FunctionSpec as the same way we did with v1.PodTemplateSpec, rather than introducing new service struct with two duplicated fields (headless can be defined with 'ServiceSpec.ClusterIP=none') and eventually add more. That would give more flexible and extensible to our function definition in future.

ngtuna · 2017-11-08T04:08:43Z

cmd/kubeless/deploy.go

 	deployCmd.Flags().StringP("memory", "", "", "Request amount of memory, which is measured in bytes, for the function. It is expressed as a plain integer or a fixed-point interger with one of these suffies: E, P, T, G, M, K, Ei, Pi, Ti, Gi, Mi, Ki")
 	deployCmd.Flags().Bool("trigger-http", false, "Deploy a http-based function to Kubeless")
 	deployCmd.Flags().StringP("runtime-image", "", "", "Custom runtime image")
+	deployCmd.Flags().Bool("headless", false, "Deploy the function as a headless service")


The description probably confuses users what exactly function as a headless service is. I would rather say: "deploy the function without IP and load balancing support from Kubernetes. See: https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/services-networking/service/#headless-services"

Or something like that.

ngtuna · 2017-11-08T04:12:41Z

cmd/kubeless/deploy.go

 	deployCmd.Flags().Bool("trigger-http", false, "Deploy a http-based function to Kubeless")
 	deployCmd.Flags().StringP("runtime-image", "", "", "Custom runtime image")
+	deployCmd.Flags().Bool("headless", false, "Deploy the function as a headless service")
+	deployCmd.Flags().Int32("port", 8080, "Deploy the function as a service listens on the specified port")


same ^ "Deploy the function with a custom port"

phsiao · 2017-11-08T15:50:03Z

Just a suggestion: I would prefer to embed the whole official v1.ServiceSpec into FunctionSpec as the same way we did with v1.PodTemplateSpec, rather than introducing new service struct with two duplicated fields (headless can be defined with 'ServiceSpec.ClusterIP=none') and eventually add more. That would give more flexible and extensible to our function definition in future.

@ngtuna I actually don't mind taking that approach, just feel that would be a larger change and did not know if it is worthwhile. Now I have a better idea of the code, I am less concerned about taking that approach. @andresmgot thought?

andresmgot · 2017-11-09T08:32:18Z

@phsiao I agree with @ngtuna, I missed the PodTemplateSpec that we are already using. It makes sense to use v1.ServiceSpec since it will allow users to specify their own yaml in the future specifying different properties of the service (not exposed by the CLI) without having to modify the code.

In the controller we will need to do something similar to what we do when creating the deployment:

	//copy all func's Spec.Template to the deployment
	tmplCopy, err := api.Scheme.DeepCopy(funcObj.Spec.Template)
	if err != nil {
		return err
	}
	dpm.Spec.Template = tmplCopy.(v1.PodTemplateSpec)

andresmgot · 2017-11-13T09:16:37Z

@phsiao is the PR ready to be reviewed?

phsiao · 2017-11-13T16:26:03Z

@andresmgot not yet, still working on the following two issues.

Modify runtime image to support specifying custom port via environment variable. I have finally figured out how to test the runtimes, but it is very slow as I am testing them one-by-one when I have a chance. I will submit a pull request separately with what I think would work, and would love to see if there are faster way to test them.
CreateIngress. CreateIngress appears to be decoupled from any of the kubernetes resource record, and I think it is best to change that especially with custom port. I just have not had a chance to look into how to integrate that with the existing tests.

However, other than those two, I think the patch can be reviewed/commented, just can't be merged because it does not have all the bits it needs to work.

ngtuna · 2017-12-21T09:56:37Z

Rebased and updated createIngress to take advantage of custom port

andresmgot

LGTM, just a couple of questions/suggestions

andresmgot · 2017-12-21T11:00:55Z

pkg/utils/k8sutil.go

+	}
+
+	port := funcObj.Spec.ServiceSpec.Ports[0].TargetPort
+	if port.IntVal <= 0 || port.IntVal > 65535 {


you don't need to do this check, you can delegate the validation to the kubernetes library

andresmgot · 2017-12-21T11:02:23Z

cmd/kubeless/update.go

 		}
+		var headless *bool = nil
+		var port *int32 = nil
+		cmd.Flags().Visit(func(flag *pflag.Flag) {


why doing this loop instead of just retrieving the values like in deployCmd?

andresmgot · 2017-12-21T11:02:56Z

cmd/kubeless/update.go

 			logrus.Fatal(err)
 		}

+		if port != nil && (*port <= 0 || *port > 65535) {


I would set this check in the getFunctionDescription function so you don't need to repeat it twice

…th customization. - ServiceSpec is built and attach to FucntionSpec in during function deploy and update. - Always builds customized ServiceSpec even when trigger-http is false to matchc current behavior.

ngtuna · 2017-12-27T15:04:37Z

All builds and tests passed. It's good to merge now 🛬

…functionspec Add ServiceSpec to FunctionSpec

andresmgot suggested changes Oct 30, 2017

View reviewed changes

phsiao changed the title ~~Add ServiceSpec to FunctionSpec~~ WIP: Add ServiceSpec to FunctionSpec Nov 6, 2017

ngtuna reviewed Nov 8, 2017

View reviewed changes

phsiao mentioned this pull request Nov 13, 2017

update runtime to use FUNC_PORT for custom port #424

Merged

3 tasks

ngtuna self-assigned this Dec 14, 2017

ngtuna changed the title ~~WIP: Add ServiceSpec to FunctionSpec~~ Add ServiceSpec to FunctionSpec Dec 21, 2017

andresmgot approved these changes Dec 21, 2017

View reviewed changes

phsiao and others added 7 commits December 27, 2017 18:35

Add ServiceSpec to FunctionSpec so it can support creating Service wi…

47f38d5

…th customization. - ServiceSpec is built and attach to FucntionSpec in during function deploy and update. - Always builds customized ServiceSpec even when trigger-http is false to matchc current behavior.

update ingress creation for custom svc port

8510074

update tests for route creation

a9a040c

add integration test for custom port

dcef02f

update digests for langruntime

ae5bfad

add more tests

5373f29

update langruntime back to kubeless org, add test for python3.6

443e202

ngtuna merged commit fef344f into vmware-archive:master Dec 27, 2017

ngtuna mentioned this pull request Dec 27, 2017

allow creating headless service #392

Closed

andresmgot mentioned this pull request Dec 30, 2017

Deployment of functions is failing on new release of Kubeless 0.3.2 with error "spec.ports: Required value" serverless/serverless-kubeless#98

Closed

sayanh pushed a commit to sayanh/kubeless that referenced this pull request Jan 17, 2018

Merge pull request vmware-archive#397 from phsiao/add_servicespec_to_…

89f585f

…functionspec Add ServiceSpec to FunctionSpec

Add ServiceSpec to FunctionSpec #397

Add ServiceSpec to FunctionSpec #397

Uh oh!

Conversation

phsiao commented Oct 28, 2017 • edited by ngtuna Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

andresmgot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

andresmgot Oct 30, 2017 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

phsiao commented Oct 30, 2017

Uh oh!

andresmgot commented Nov 2, 2017

Uh oh!

phsiao commented Nov 5, 2017 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

phsiao commented Nov 6, 2017

Uh oh!

ngtuna commented Nov 8, 2017

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

phsiao commented Nov 8, 2017

Uh oh!

andresmgot commented Nov 9, 2017

Uh oh!

andresmgot commented Nov 13, 2017

Uh oh!

phsiao commented Nov 13, 2017

Uh oh!

ngtuna commented Dec 21, 2017

Uh oh!

andresmgot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ngtuna commented Dec 27, 2017

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

phsiao commented Oct 28, 2017 •

edited by ngtuna

Loading

andresmgot Oct 30, 2017 •

edited

Loading

phsiao commented Nov 5, 2017 •

edited

Loading