e2e tests specific Network/DNS related : add Ipv6 capability #59894

fturib · 2018-02-14T23:39:07Z

What this PR does / why we need it:
Support of IPV6 for e2e network/dns tests.

Use the flag "[Feature:Networking-IPv6]" to run in an IPv6 context only
Use the flag "[Feature:Networking-IPv4]" to run in an IPv4 context only

NOTE: the existing [Conformance] still apply to the same IPv4 tests only.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes *

None, but is related to : coredns/coredns#1236

Special notes for your reviewer

I ran these tests for Ipv6 and for Ipv4 in dedicated environment "Docker-in-Docker" that can propose IPv6 stack.
the IPv4 version is already running part of e2e tests of Kubernetes.

NOTE: I ran the IPv6 ONLY for the "coreDNS" version of DNS. Which is now BETA for v.1.10 and will be GA for v1.11

Release note:

NONE

fturib · 2018-02-14T23:42:13Z

/assign @danehans

fturib · 2018-02-14T23:47:17Z

/assign @leblancd

k8s-ci-robot · 2018-02-14T23:47:18Z

@fturib: GitHub didn't allow me to assign the following users: leblancd.

Note that only kubernetes members and repo collaborators can be assigned.

In response to this:

/assign @leblancd

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.

fturib · 2018-02-14T23:47:59Z

/cc @leblancd

k8s-ci-robot · 2018-02-14T23:47:59Z

@fturib: GitHub didn't allow me to request PR reviews from the following users: leblancd.

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

In response to this:

/cc @leblancd

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.

fturib · 2018-02-15T22:17:53Z

test/e2e/network/dns.go

-	probeCmd += fmt.Sprintf(`test -n "$$(dig +tcp +noall +answer +search $${podARec} A)" && echo OK > /results/%s;`, podARecByTCPFileName)
+	podARecByUDPFileName := fmt.Sprintf("%s_udp@Pod%sRecord", fileNamePrefix, typeA)
+	podARecByTCPFileName := fmt.Sprintf("%s_tcp@Pod%sRecord", fileNamePrefix, typeA)
+	probeCmd += fmt.Sprintf(`podARec="$$(hostname -i| awk -F. '{print $$1"-"$$2"-"$$3"-"$$4".%s.pod.cluster.local"}')";`, namespace)


There is an error here.
I did not take the right file. should call the ReverseAddr function

fturib · 2018-03-14T15:11:06Z

This PR needs rebase.
But in order to test locally the change after rebase, I need to validate in IPv4 and Ipv6 environment.

Currently an error of deployment in the docker-in-docker tool I use for testing is preventing to go ahead.

I am waiting on this PR : kubernetes-retired/kubeadm-dind-cluster#85
(fix of kubernetes-retired/kubeadm-dind-cluster#82).

pmichali · 2018-04-12T10:50:20Z

@fturib Can you rebase this now that DinD PR #85 is merged? I tried E2E test on an IPv6 cluster and this test is failing. I'm wondering if it is just an issue with the probe, or if there is also an issue in test setup, where I see it trying to access API at 127.0.0.1:8080, instead of [::1]:8080.

fturib · 2018-04-12T12:36:59Z

@pmichali : since 2 days I tried to run my D-in-D and it runs properly for IPv4, but not for IPv6.
=> the Nodes and Pods are responding when queried directly on their IPv6 address (ping or https) .. but not the services.

Looks like there is a piece missing behind the services.
I tested on "kubernetes" service (the default API) and "kube-dns" service (which points to a pod coredns).

Any idea what can go wrong here ?

(It prevent me to re-verify the test after rebasing).

leblancd · 2018-04-12T13:28:00Z

@fturib - In IPv6 mode, when you try to curl kubernetes API service IP from a node, does it matter from which node you try? My guess is that maybe ip6tables aren't getting set up correctly for some reason. Can you check 'ip6tables -t nat -L | grep kube'. You can IM on Slack (my ID is 'dane' in kubernetes) if you prefer.

fturib · 2018-04-12T16:23:45Z

PR is up to date.
I was able to test locally in those conditions, with a D-in-D cluster:

IPv4 / CoreDNS (../../mirantis/kubeadm-dind-cluster/dind-cluster.sh e2e 'DNS' 'IPv6')
IPv4/kube-dns (../../mirantis/kubeadm-dind-cluster/dind-cluster.sh e2e 'DNS' 'IPv6 ')
IPv6/CoreDNS (../../mirantis/kubeadm-dind-cluster/dind-cluster.sh e2e 'DNS' 'IPv4')

For all of them, the usual DNS tests are passing.
However all of the federation related DNS tests are failing (whatever CroeDNS or KubeDNS).

These failing tests are:

[It] should be able to change federation configuration [Slow][Serial]
[It] should be able to change stubDomain configuration [Slow][Serial]
[It] should forward PTR records lookup to upstream nameserver [Slow][Serial]

fturib · 2018-04-12T16:26:49Z

@freehan , @dnardo : thanks to review the PR.

@leblancd : thanks for your help on my D-in-D cluster installation (finally, now I am able to shutdown and rebuild .. it is working all times ..)

@pmichali : let me know if that is ok.

pmichali · 2018-04-16T11:22:43Z

@fturib Does the test for "DNS [It] should provide DNS for services [Conformance]" pass, when using an IPv6 cluster in kube-dns and coredns mode? I was seeing that test failing (without any changes applied). One concern that I had, was it seemed that during test setup (the Before part), it was trying to access the API to check nodes and it was using 127.0.0.1:8080, which was failing (should be [::1]:8080?)

fturib · 2018-04-16T13:56:40Z

@pmichali : without these changes, the tests : "DNS ... Should provide ..." will not work for IPv6, at least because the DNS query is "A" instead of "AAAA".

with the changes of this PR, you will need to select to run either the IPv4 test, either IPV6 tests ...
NOTE: the IPV6 tests are NOT "[Conformance]" (only the IPV4 tests are).
(You need to filter on "DNS [Feature:Networking-IPv6] ....")

about "127.0.0.1:8080" I cannot say ... I had no need to change anything there, only about the DNS queries.

pmichali · 2018-04-16T19:33:33Z

@fturib Yes, I am running the test on an IPv6 cluster, and using the ginkgo focus to include this test. It is failing in the Before step, being unable to access the API, and is not even getting to the actual test.

Did you happen to run this test in IPv6 mode for kube-dns? For coredns? Do you see this error (or success in accessing the API)?

fturib · 2018-04-16T20:49:43Z

@pmichali : if am a little confused by the name of the test you are talking about:
the test named : "DNS [It] should provide DNS for services [Conformance]" - CANNOT be a test with the changes of this PR

with the current PR, you can only have:

"DNS [Feature:Networking-IPv4] [It] should provide DNS for services [Conformance]"
or "DNS [Feature:Networking-IPv6] [It] should provide DNS for services"

If you have exactly : "DNS [It] should provide DNS for services [Conformance]" - it means you are running WITHOUT this PR and in that case the test is working only for IPV4

pmichali · 2018-04-17T10:58:47Z

@fturib Right, I'm running without the PR, and I see a failure in IPv6 mode. I know that it is not doing the right probe command, but it seemed (when I ran it) that it was failing before that point, and not able to communicate with the API.

I was wondering whether or not the test works in IPv6 with kube-dns, when using this PR (I'm assuming it works with coredns). I'll try to apply this PR to my environment and run the test (once I get my IPv6 test bed working again).

fturib · 2018-04-17T12:46:35Z

@pmichali : I am running in IPv6 environment, with kube-dns server, I get the following errors in 'kubedns' pod:

kubectl logs pod/kube-dns-7d7ff7d67d-zzdng kubedns -n kube-system -f

...
I0417 12:40:45.759507       1 logs.go:41] skydns: error from backend: Invalid IP Address fd00.77..2.0.0.2
I0417 12:40:45.804140       1 logs.go:41] skydns: error from backend: Invalid IP Address fd00.77..2.0.0.4
I0417 12:40:45.809568       1 logs.go:41] skydns: error from backend: Invalid IP Address fd00.77..2.0.0.4
I0417 12:40:46.190569       1 logs.go:41] skydns: error from backend: Invalid IP Address fd00.77..1.0.0.3
I0417 12:40:46.200843       1 logs.go:41] skydns: error from backend: Invalid IP Address fd00.77..1.0.0.3
I0417 12:40:46.805180       1 logs.go:41] skydns: error from backend: Invalid IP Address fd00.77..2.0.0.2
I0417 12:40:46.817782       1 logs.go:41] skydns: error from backend: Invalid IP Address fd00.77..2.0.0.2
I0417 12:40:46.878474       1 logs.go:41] skydns: error from backend: Invalid IP Address fd00.77..2.0.0.4
...

Other pods seems in better shape:

kubectl logs pod/kube-dns-7d7ff7d67d-zzdng dnsmasq -n kube-system

I0417 12:30:25.307366       1 main.go:74] opts: {{/usr/sbin/dnsmasq [-k --cache-size=1000 --no-negcache --log-facility=- --server=/cluster.local/::1#10053 --server=/in-addr.arpa/::1#10053 --server=/ip6.arpa/::1#10053] true} /etc/k8s/dns/dnsmasq-nanny 10000000000}
I0417 12:30:25.307478       1 nanny.go:94] Starting dnsmasq [-k --cache-size=1000 --no-negcache --log-facility=- --server=/cluster.local/::1#10053 --server=/in-addr.arpa/::1#10053 --server=/ip6.arpa/::1#10053]
I0417 12:30:25.516783       1 nanny.go:116] dnsmasq[18]: started, version 2.78 cachesize 1000
I0417 12:30:25.516783       1 nanny.go:119] 
I0417 12:30:25.516802       1 nanny.go:116] dnsmasq[18]: compile time options: IPv6 GNU-getopt no-DBus no-i18n no-IDN DHCP DHCPv6 no-Lua TFTP no-conntrack ipset auth no-DNSSEC loop-detect inotify
W0417 12:30:25.516805       1 nanny.go:120] Got EOF from stdout
I0417 12:30:25.516810       1 nanny.go:116] dnsmasq[18]: using nameserver ::1#10053 for domain ip6.arpa 
I0417 12:30:25.516813       1 nanny.go:116] dnsmasq[18]: using nameserver ::1#10053 for domain in-addr.arpa 
I0417 12:30:25.516816       1 nanny.go:116] dnsmasq[18]: using nameserver ::1#10053 for domain cluster.local 
I0417 12:30:25.516830       1 nanny.go:116] dnsmasq[18]: reading /etc/resolv.conf
I0417 12:30:25.516834       1 nanny.go:116] dnsmasq[18]: using nameserver ::1#10053 for domain ip6.arpa 
I0417 12:30:25.516837       1 nanny.go:116] dnsmasq[18]: using nameserver ::1#10053 for domain in-addr.arpa 
I0417 12:30:25.516841       1 nanny.go:116] dnsmasq[18]: using nameserver ::1#10053 for domain cluster.local 
I0417 12:30:25.516844       1 nanny.go:116] dnsmasq[18]: using nameserver fd00:77::100#53
I0417 12:30:25.516848       1 nanny.go:116] dnsmasq[18]: read /etc/hosts - 7 addresses

root@kube-master:/# kubectl logs pod/kube-dns-7d7ff7d67d-zzdng sidecar -n kube-system

I0417 12:30:26.706801       1 main.go:51] Version v1.14.9
I0417 12:30:26.706841       1 server.go:45] Starting server (options {DnsMasqPort:53 DnsMasqAddr:127.0.0.1 DnsMasqPollIntervalMs:5000 Probes:[{Label:kubedns Server:[::1]:10053 Name:kubernetes.default.svc.cluster.local. Interval:5s Type:33} {Label:dnsmasq Server:[::1]:53 Name:kubernetes.default.svc.cluster.local. Interval:5s Type:33}] PrometheusAddr:0.0.0.0 PrometheusPort:10054 PrometheusPath:/metrics PrometheusNamespace:kubedns})
I0417 12:30:26.706865       1 dnsprobe.go:75] Starting dnsProbe {Label:kubedns Server:[::1]:10053 Name:kubernetes.default.svc.cluster.local. Interval:5s Type:33}
I0417 12:30:26.706901       1 dnsprobe.go:75] Starting dnsProbe {Label:dnsmasq Server:[::1]:53 Name:kubernetes.default.svc.cluster.local. Interval:5s Type:33}

fturib · 2018-04-17T12:50:49Z

Result of test for kube-dns in IPv6 environment:

command launched (run all DNS e2e test, except the one specific to IPv4):

../../mirantis/kubeadm-dind-cluster/dind-cluster.sh e2e 'DNS' 'IPv4'

Summarizing 6 Failures:

[Fail] [sig-network] DNS configMap nameserver [It] should be able to change stubDomain configuration [Slow][Serial]
[Fail] [sig-network] DNS configMap federations [It] should be able to change federation configuration
[Fail] [sig-network] DNS configMap nameserver [It] should forward PTR records lookup to upstream
[Fail] [sig-network] DNS [Feature:Networking-IPv6] [It] should provide DNS for pods for Hostname and
[Fail] [sig-network] DNS [Feature:Networking-IPv6] [It] should provide DNS for the cluster  
[Fail] [sig-network] DNS [Feature:Networking-IPv6] [It] should provide DNS for services  

Ran 8 of 888 Specs in 631.187 seconds
FAIL! -- 2 Passed | 6 Failed | 0 Pending | 880 Skipped

oomichi

Thanks for doing this, just few comments

oomichi · 2019-02-14T18:39:01Z

test/e2e/network/dns.go

 	f := framework.NewDefaultFramework("dns")

 	/*
 		Release : v1.9
-		Testname: DNS, cluster
+		Testname: DNS, cluster,


nit: Why do we need this Testname?

oomichi · 2019-02-14T18:45:51Z

test/e2e/network/dns.go

 	f := framework.NewDefaultFramework("dns")

 	/*
 		Release : v1.9
-		Testname: DNS, cluster
+		Testname: DNS, cluster,
 		Description: When a Pod is created, the pod MUST be able to resolve cluster dns entries such as kubernetes.default via DNS and /etc/hosts.
 	*/


The comment of line 39-43 is for conformance test.
We need to move the comment to line 74 if IPv4's one only is a conformance test, I think.

@fturib this still needs to be addressed

oomichi · 2019-02-14T18:52:58Z

test/e2e/network/dns.go

@@ -96,8 +104,7 @@ var _ = SIGDescribe("DNS", func() {
 		Testname: DNS, services
 		Description: When a headless service is created, the service MUST be able to resolve all the required service endpoints. When the service is created, any pod in the same namespace must be able to resolve the service by all of the expected DNS names.
 	*/


@fturib this as well

fturib · 2019-02-14T23:37:13Z

@oomichi : are you sure about the comments of the tests ?
I will remove the extra ","

I am seeing it is used to process all tests with [Conformance] flag and transform into a ItConformance(..) kind if code.

fturib · 2019-02-15T00:16:48Z

I wanted to be smart and share the sync with 2 machines ... but looks like I am wrong and need to resync properly.
Ignore last change ... I will come later with another commit after local tests. Sorry

bowei · 2019-02-19T18:56:42Z

test/e2e/network/dns_common.go

-		arr[i], arr[j] = arr[j], arr[i]
+const hexDigit = "0123456789abcdef"
+
+func ReverseAddr(addr string) (arpa string) {


doesn't seem like named return is being used

right. removed.

bowei · 2019-02-19T18:58:32Z

test/e2e/network/dns_common.go

+		return ""
+	}
+	if ip.To4() != nil {
+		return strconv.Itoa(int(ip[15])) + "." + strconv.Itoa(int(ip[14])) + "." + strconv.Itoa(int(ip[13])) + "." +


if ip4 := ip.To4(); ip4 != nil { return fmt.Sprintf("%d.%d.%d.%d.in-addr.arpa", ip4[3], ip4[2], ip4[1], ip4[0]) }

bowei · 2019-02-19T18:59:49Z

test/e2e/network/dns_common.go

+			strconv.Itoa(int(ip[12])) + ".in-addr.arpa."
+	}
+	// Must be IPv6
+	buf := make([]byte, 0, len(ip)*4+len("ip6.arpa."))


just do var buf string; don't over optimize

code updated.

bowei · 2019-02-19T19:02:03Z

test/e2e/network/dns_common.go

+	// Add it, in reverse, to the buffer
+	for i := len(ip) - 1; i >= 0; i-- {
+		v := ip[i]
+		buf = append(buf, hexDigit[v&0xF])


v := ip[i] buf += fmt.Sprintf("%x%.x.", v&0xf, v>>4) } return buf + "ip4.arpa."

code updated.

bowei · 2019-02-19T19:02:34Z

test/e2e/network/dns.go

+	}
+}
+
+var _ = SIGDescribe("DNS [IPv4]", func() {


Feature:Networking-IPv4?

here we cannot set [Feature:Networking-IPv4], because "Feature" is a keyword used in the e2e tests, and are most often just skipped.
We want to flag IPv4 - but keep the usual information, especially "Conformance".

fturib · 2019-02-20T21:05:24Z

/retest

k8s-ci-robot · 2019-02-20T21:05:38Z

@fturib: Cannot trigger testing until a trusted user reviews the PR and leaves an /ok-to-test message.

In response to this:

/retest

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.

fturib · 2019-02-20T21:06:27Z

@bowei : Looks like I lack a "ok-to-test" label now ... could you add it ?

rajansandeep · 2019-02-20T21:08:54Z

/ok-to-test

fturib · 2019-02-20T23:13:49Z

@bowei : i updated the code following review comments.
NOTE: I cannot set the name of e2e to "Feature:Networking-IPv4" as "Feature" has a special meaning and would prevent these tests to run as usual.

fturib · 2019-02-27T02:47:38Z

/test pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce

fturib · 2019-02-28T21:43:14Z

@bowei : I rebased after changes (I guess linked to windowss integration in the dns.go tests).
Can we go ahead and have this PR merged ?

I think I replied all concerns and comments.
Let me know. Thanks!

soggiest · 2019-03-05T05:11:06Z

1.14 code freeze is coming up in 3 days. @kubernetes/sig-network-pr-reviews can someone do a final review and merge?

fturib · 2019-03-07T01:18:26Z

@bowei , @thockin : can we push to get this done before needed a new rebase ? Thanks !

cmluciano

couple of nits but overall looks good. Please be sure to address @bowei 's remaining comments

cmluciano · 2019-03-07T16:48:31Z

test/e2e/network/dns.go

-	})
+	}
+
+	// only IPv4 is conformance for now


nit: let's list this as a TODO:

Are you sure.
the TODO would be to run IPv6 Conformance tests .. it is a k8s-wide tests issue. Not only this one.

I removed that comment.

cmluciano · 2019-03-07T16:51:15Z

test/e2e/network/dns.go

+			Expect(f.WaitForPodRunning(testUtilsPod.Name)).NotTo(HaveOccurred(), "failed to wait for pod %s to be running", testUtilsPod.Name)
+
+			By("Verifying customized DNS option is configured on pod...")
+			// TODO: Figure out a better way other than checking the actual resolv,conf file.


Suggested change

// TODO: Figure out a better way other than checking the actual resolv,conf file.

// TODO: Figure out a better way other than checking the actual resolv.conf file.

fturib · 2019-03-07T17:01:26Z

@cmluciano : I think I already addressed the comment of @bowei no ? Which one are not included ?

fturib · 2019-03-07T22:45:43Z

@aanandr - Thanks to look if this PR can be useful for the work on dual stack Ipv4/Ipv6.
Let me know.
Thanks!

cmluciano · 2019-03-08T18:59:06Z

@cmluciano https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/59894/files#r236891707

spiffxp

/hold
I appreciate how old this PR is and how much work has been put in to get it this far, but I have a number of objections to it landing as-is, mainly around the conformance related stuff.

Given where we are with our CI Signal (through no fault of your own) I feel like this should be removed from the milestone at this point.

I will leave this in for now, if you are willing to put in a super quick turnaround on the requested changes

spiffxp · 2019-03-13T20:34:21Z

test/e2e/network/dns.go

 	f := framework.NewDefaultFramework("dns")

 	/*
 		Release : v1.9
-		Testname: DNS, cluster
+		Testname: DNS, cluster,
 		Description: When a Pod is created, the pod MUST be able to resolve cluster dns entries such as kubernetes.default via DNS and /etc/hosts.
 	*/


@fturib this still needs to be addressed

spiffxp · 2019-03-13T20:34:51Z

test/e2e/network/dns.go

@@ -96,8 +104,7 @@ var _ = SIGDescribe("DNS", func() {
 		Testname: DNS, services
 		Description: When a headless service is created, the service MUST be able to resolve all the required service endpoints. When the service is created, any pod in the same namespace must be able to resolve the service by all of the expected DNS names.
 	*/


@fturib this as well

spiffxp · 2019-03-13T20:38:37Z

test/e2e/network/dns.go

+	if isIPv6 {
+		It("should provide DNS for the cluster", testDNSforCluster)
+	} else {
+		framework.ConformanceIt("should provide DNS for the cluster", testDNSforCluster)


The comments @oomichi pointed out need to live here

spiffxp · 2019-03-13T20:38:53Z

test/e2e/network/dns.go

+	if isIPv6 {
+		It("should provide /etc/hosts entries for the cluster [LinuxOnly]", testHostEntries)
+	} else {
+		framework.ConformanceIt("should provide /etc/hosts entries for the cluster [LinuxOnly]", testHostEntries)


Here as well

spiffxp · 2019-03-13T20:39:03Z

test/e2e/network/dns.go

+	if isIPv6 {
+		It("should provide DNS for services", testDNSService)
+	} else {
+		framework.ConformanceIt("should provide DNS for services", testDNSService)


spiffxp · 2019-03-13T20:40:43Z

test/e2e/network/dns_common.go

@@ -444,14 +446,20 @@ func createDNSPod(namespace, wheezyProbeCmd, jessieProbeCmd, podHostName, servic
 	return dnsPod
 }

-func createProbeCommand(namesToResolve []string, hostEntries []string, ptrLookupIP string, fileNamePrefix, namespace, dnsDomain string) (string, []string) {
+func createProbeCommand(isIpv6 bool, namesToResolve []string, hostEntries []string, ptrLookupIP string, fileNamePrefix, namespace, dnsDomain string) (string, []string) {


this also remains unresolved

spiffxp · 2019-03-13T20:44:13Z

test/e2e/network/dns_common.go

+		probeCmd += fmt.Sprintf(`test -n "$$(getent %s %s)" && echo OK > /results/%s;`, getentdb, name, fileName)
+	}
+
+	podARecByUDPFileName := fmt.Sprintf("%s_udp@Pod%sRecord", fileNamePrefix, typeA)


Has this been resolved? Because I agree it should be possible for a cluster to be Conformant without using a specific DNS implementation (CoreDNS vs. kube-dns). Given that this function ends up being used in conformance tests I view this as a non-starter

spiffxp · 2019-03-13T20:51:10Z

/area conformance
this affects conformance tests

spiffxp · 2019-03-13T21:21:02Z

/remove-priority critical-urgent
ref: #59894 (comment)

/milestone clear
after discussing with other conformance reviewers, we're going to punt this out of the milestone, this can land in v1.15

fturib · 2019-03-13T22:09:48Z

@spiffxp : Thanks for your review.
My bad: on last SIG-Network review, it was decided that this PR will not be merge, because the IPv6 test framework is not ready, and all this code added for Ipv6 will not be exercised anyway for a long time.

I should have closed it last Thursday already.

k8s-ci-robot requested review from dnardo and freehan February 14, 2018 23:39

k8s-ci-robot added the cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. label Feb 14, 2018

fturib changed the title ~~e2e tests spcific DNS - add Ipv6 capability~~ e2e tests specific Network/DNS related : add Ipv6 capability Feb 14, 2018

k8s-ci-robot assigned danehans Feb 14, 2018

fturib commented Feb 15, 2018

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Feb 26, 2018

fturib force-pushed the dns-ipv6 branch from 7834f40 to 3b1c73e Compare April 12, 2018 16:19

k8s-ci-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Apr 12, 2018

oomichi reviewed Feb 14, 2019

View reviewed changes

bowei reviewed Feb 19, 2019

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot added the ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. label Feb 20, 2019

add IPv6 version for the DNS tests

13d0410

fturib force-pushed the dns-ipv6 branch from 0e4f2f7 to 13d0410 Compare February 27, 2019 00:41

cmluciano reviewed Mar 7, 2019

View reviewed changes

address review comments: nits on code comments

5006402

spiffxp suggested changes Mar 13, 2019

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Mar 13, 2019

k8s-ci-robot added the area/conformance Issues or PRs related to kubernetes conformance tests label Mar 13, 2019

timothysc removed this from the v1.14 milestone Mar 13, 2019

k8s-ci-robot removed the priority/critical-urgent Highest priority. Must be actively worked on as someone's top priority right now. label Mar 13, 2019

fturib closed this Mar 13, 2019

	// TODO: Figure out a better way other than checking the actual resolv,conf file.
	// TODO: Figure out a better way other than checking the actual resolv.conf file.

e2e tests specific Network/DNS related : add Ipv6 capability #59894

e2e tests specific Network/DNS related : add Ipv6 capability #59894

Conversation

fturib commented Feb 14, 2018 • edited Loading

fturib commented Feb 14, 2018

fturib commented Feb 14, 2018

k8s-ci-robot commented Feb 14, 2018

fturib commented Feb 14, 2018

k8s-ci-robot commented Feb 14, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

fturib commented Mar 14, 2018

pmichali commented Apr 12, 2018 • edited Loading

fturib commented Apr 12, 2018

leblancd commented Apr 12, 2018

fturib commented Apr 12, 2018

fturib commented Apr 12, 2018

pmichali commented Apr 16, 2018

fturib commented Apr 16, 2018

pmichali commented Apr 16, 2018

fturib commented Apr 16, 2018 • edited Loading

pmichali commented Apr 17, 2018

fturib commented Apr 17, 2018

fturib commented Apr 17, 2018

oomichi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

fturib commented Feb 14, 2019

fturib commented Feb 15, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

fturib Feb 20, 2019 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

fturib commented Feb 20, 2019

k8s-ci-robot commented Feb 20, 2019

fturib commented Feb 20, 2019

rajansandeep commented Feb 20, 2019

fturib commented Feb 20, 2019

fturib commented Feb 27, 2019

fturib commented Feb 28, 2019

soggiest commented Mar 5, 2019

fturib commented Mar 7, 2019

cmluciano left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

fturib commented Mar 7, 2019 • edited Loading

fturib commented Mar 7, 2019

cmluciano commented Mar 8, 2019

spiffxp left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

spiffxp commented Mar 13, 2019

spiffxp commented Mar 13, 2019

fturib commented Mar 13, 2019

fturib commented Feb 14, 2018 •

edited

Loading

pmichali commented Apr 12, 2018 •

edited

Loading

fturib commented Apr 16, 2018 •

edited

Loading

fturib Feb 20, 2019 •

edited

Loading

fturib commented Mar 7, 2019 •

edited

Loading