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.

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

kubectl: ignore only update conflicts in the scaler #27048

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jul 3, 2016
Merged

kubectl: ignore only update conflicts in the scaler #27048

merged 2 commits into from
Jul 3, 2016

Conversation

0xmichalis
Copy link
Contributor

@kubernetes/kubectl is there any reason to retry any other errors?

@0xmichalis 0xmichalis added area/kubectl release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. cla: human-approved labels Jun 8, 2016
@k8s-github-robot k8s-github-robot added size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Jun 8, 2016
@0xmichalis
Copy link
Contributor Author

@smarterclayton @ironcladlou this is so we can have more meaningful logs in the deployer pod. Currently all update errors (except invalid) are retried and eventually the poller times out and returns a non-sensical message to the user ("timed out waiting for the condition"). Does it make sense to retry only on 409? Can you think of another rc update failure where we want the deployer to keep trying?

@k8s-bot
Copy link

k8s-bot commented Jun 8, 2016

GCE e2e build/test passed for commit c7140b3.

@smarterclayton
Copy link
Contributor

I would only expect to retry on 409, and maybe temporary network errors, but that's it.

@0xmichalis
Copy link
Contributor Author

@janetkuo can you review this when you have free time? I would like it merged as soon as the code freeze is over (got any dates?).

@0xmichalis 0xmichalis added the priority/important-soon Must be staffed and worked on either currently, or very soon, ideally in time for the next release. label Jun 26, 2016
@0xmichalis 0xmichalis added priority/backlog Higher priority than priority/awaiting-more-evidence. and removed priority/important-soon Must be staffed and worked on either currently, or very soon, ideally in time for the next release. labels Jun 26, 2016
@0xmichalis
Copy link
Contributor Author

0xmichalis commented Jun 26, 2016

Adding P2 since it's needed for debugging #28067 which is also P2.

@0xmichalis
Copy link
Contributor Author

Bumping to P0, following the issue priority

@0xmichalis 0xmichalis added priority/critical-urgent Highest priority. Must be actively worked on as someone's top priority right now. and removed priority/backlog Higher priority than priority/awaiting-more-evidence. labels Jun 29, 2016
@0xmichalis
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hm, the flake is not related to the scaler, dropping to P2

@0xmichalis 0xmichalis added priority/backlog Higher priority than priority/awaiting-more-evidence. and removed priority/critical-urgent Highest priority. Must be actively worked on as someone's top priority right now. labels Jun 29, 2016
@pwittrock
Copy link
Member

@Kargakis I am on vacation but will try to review this in the next week or 2

@smarterclayton
Copy link
Contributor

I've got it. LGTM.

Does the default scale implementation for RC / D use patch on the underlying resource? Or not, because we don't have preconditions?

@smarterclayton smarterclayton added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jul 2, 2016
@pwittrock
Copy link
Member

@smarterclayton Thanks

@k8s-bot
Copy link

k8s-bot commented Jul 2, 2016

GCE e2e build/test failed for commit c7140b3.

Please reference the list of currently known flakes when examining this failure. If you request a re-test, you must reference the issue describing the flake.

@smarterclayton
Copy link
Contributor

@k8s-bot test this issue: #IGNORE

@k8s-bot
Copy link

k8s-bot commented Jul 3, 2016

GCE e2e build/test passed for commit c7140b3.

@k8s-github-robot
Copy link

@k8s-bot test this [submit-queue is verifying that this PR is safe to merge]

@k8s-bot
Copy link

k8s-bot commented Jul 3, 2016

GCE e2e build/test passed for commit c7140b3.

@k8s-bot
Copy link

k8s-bot commented Jul 3, 2016

GCE e2e build/test passed for commit c7140b3.

@k8s-github-robot
Copy link

Automatic merge from submit-queue

@k8s-github-robot k8s-github-robot merged commit 2f9feef into kubernetes:master Jul 3, 2016
@0xmichalis 0xmichalis deleted the ignore-only-409-in-scaler branch July 3, 2016 07:53
@0xmichalis
Copy link
Contributor Author

Does the default scale implementation for RC / D use patch on the underlying resource? Or not, because we don't have preconditions?

Full updates, I guess because of preconditions

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area/kubectl lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. priority/backlog Higher priority than priority/awaiting-more-evidence. release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants