Add k8s integration tests #886
Conversation
Signed-off-by: ChrsMark <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: ChrsMark <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: ChrsMark <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: ChrsMark <[email protected]>
💚 Build Succeeded
Expand to view the summary
Build stats
Test stats 🧪
Trends 🧪 |
Signed-off-by: ChrsMark <[email protected]>
5752d32 to
375177f
Compare
|
@mtojek @ycombinator I think that this scenario might be a good candidate to put flakiness because we don't wait for custom resources to be ready so we might fail to get metrics from the endpoints since the service is not yet ready. I think this happens here with I wonder if we could add sth like "wait for healthy" on k8s service deployer to ensure that custom resource is ready. |
Sounds good to me. We have a |
I think this one runs on a different level. We need something on the service's |
|
One more question, @ChrsMark . Do you have any proposal for the |
|
Hey! Since we have to do with metrics collection and mostly http maybe using liveness checks can work here. In this way when you add a custom resource you are responsible for defining the liveness probe and then the deployer will check the status of the pod and wait until ready. Feel free to ping me when on it to further brainstorm on this. |
What if custom definitions describe multiple pods and some of them hasn't been created yet (we can see that there is one pod in progress)? |
Signed-off-by: ChrsMark <[email protected]>
8810952 to
bf7a8e2
Compare
|
FYI I pushed the update of elastic-package to the master branch. |
Signed-off-by: ChrsMark <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: ChrsMark <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: ChrsMark <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: ChrsMark <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: ChrsMark <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: ChrsMark <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: ChrsMark <[email protected]>
|
Blocked on elastic/elastic-package#332 |
| - name: pod.uid | ||
| type: keyword | ||
| description: > | ||
| Kubernetes Pod UID |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: pod vs Pod (casing consistency)
| - name: deployment.name | ||
| type: keyword | ||
| description: > | ||
| Kubernetes deployment name |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: not sure if we need the prefix "Kubernetes" in every field description
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is how we have it in Beats too, I don't think this is a bad pattern.
| - http://{{Hostname}}:10251 | ||
| - https://0.0.0.0:10257 | ||
| bearer_token_file: /var/run/secrets/kubernetes.io/serviceaccount/token | ||
| ssl.verification_mode: "none" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: why exactly is the ssl.verification_mode = none? is it because we're lacking some permissions or certs?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We use the token for the auth part but since the server is https we need a CA or --insecure( ssl.verification_mode: "none") flag to access it. We follow this pattern for kubelet's api too and most probably works fine in real world clusters. If users want to use CAs they can too but they need to provide it properly. (we have some similar cases with kubelet's api access in openshift and we had to find the proper CA generated by k8s so as to use it with Beats too). For this testing scenario I think we are safe.
| @@ -0,0 +1,108 @@ | |||
| apiVersion: rbac.authorization.k8s.io/v1 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Did you consider using a package scoped _dev/deploy that can be common for all data streams?
| name: kubernetes | ||
| title: Kubernetes | ||
| version: 0.4.5 | ||
| version: 0.5.0 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would you mind updating the changelog as you added new field definitions?
Signed-off-by: ChrsMark <[email protected]>
ba06b38 to
a91cae2
Compare
Signed-off-by: ChrsMark <[email protected]>
What does this PR do?
This PR adds tests for k8s package using k8s service deployer.
Related to #822