Headless+selectorless -> RequireDualStack
Headless+selector -> SingleStack
Add test cases to cover this and ExternalName and dual-stack init (which
I think can never trigger, but best to be safe).
This scaffolding allows us to assert more on each test case, and more
consistently.
Set input fields from output fields IFF they are expected AND not set on
input. This allows us to verify the "after" state (expected) whether
the test case specified the value or not, and still pass the generic
cmp.Equal.
Use this in a few tests to prove its worth, more to do.
Some of the existing tests that are focused on create and delete can
probably be replaced by these.
This could be used in other test cases that are open-coding a lot of the
same stuff. Later commits.
This includes a few cases.
1) TestCreateIgnoresIPFamilyForExternalName: Prove that ExternalName is
ignored for dual-stack. A small set of test cases were chosen to
demonstrate.
2) TestCreateIgnoresIPFamilyWithoutDualStack: Prove that when the
dual-stack gate is off, all services are ignored for dual-stack. A
small set of test cases were chosen to demonstrate
3) TestCreateInitIPFields: Run over a huge array of test cases for
dual-stack. This was generated by this program:
https://gist.github.com/thockin/cccc9c9a580b4830ee0946ddd43eeafe and
then updated by hand.
Prior to 1.22 a user could change NodePort values within a service
during an update, and the apiserver would allocate values for any that
were not specified.
Consider a YAML like:
```
apiVersion: v1
kind: Service
metadata:
name: foo
spec:
type: NodePort
ports:
- name: p
port: 80
- name: q
port: 81
selector:
app: foo
```
When this is created, nodeport values will be allocated for each port.
Something like:
```
apiVersion: v1
kind: Service
metadata:
name: foo
spec:
clusterIP: 10.0.149.11
type: NodePort
ports:
- name: p
nodePort: 30872
port: 80
protocol: TCP
targetPort: 9376
- name: q
nodePort: 31310
port: 81
protocol: TCP
targetPort: 81
selector:
app: foo
```
If the user PUTs (kubectl replace) the original YAML, we would see that
`.nodePort = 0`, and allocate new ports. This was ugly at best.
In 1.22 we fixed this to not allocate new values if we still had the old
values, but instead re-assign them. Net new ports would still be seen
as `.nodePort = 0` and so new allocations would be made.
This broke a corner case as follows:
Prior to 1.22, the user could PUT this YAML:
```
apiVersion: v1
kind: Service
metadata:
name: foo
spec:
type: NodePort
ports:
- name: p
nodePort: 31310 # note this is the `q` value
port: 80
- name: q
# note this nodePort is not specified
port: 81
selector:
app: foo
```
The `p` port would take the `q` port's value. The `q` port would be
seen as `.nodePort = 0` and a new value allocated. In 1.22 this results
in an error (duplicate value in `p` and `q`).
This is VERY minor but it is an API regression, which we try to avoid,
and the fix is not too horrible.
This commit adds more robust testing of this logic.
It is not uncommon for users to Create a Service and not specify things
like ClusterIP and NodePort, which we then allocate for them. They same
that YAML somewhere and later use it again in an Update, but then it
fails.
That's because we detected them trying to set a ClusterIP from a value
to "", which is not allowed. If it was just NodePort, they would
actually succeed and reallocate a new port.
After this change, we try to "patch" updates where the user did not
specify those values from the old object.
* pkg/features: promote the ServiceInternalTrafficPolicy field to Beta and on by default
Signed-off-by: Andrew Sy Kim <kim.andrewsy@gmail.com>
* pkg/api/service/testing: update Service test fixture functions to set internalTrafficPolicy=Cluster by default
Signed-off-by: Andrew Sy Kim <kim.andrewsy@gmail.com>
* pkg/apis/core/validation: add more Service validation tests for internalTrafficPolicy
Signed-off-by: Andrew Sy Kim <kim.andrewsy@gmail.com>
* pkg/registry/core/service/storage: fix failing Service REST storage tests to use internalTrafficPolicy: Cluster
Signed-off-by: Andrew Sy Kim <kim.andrewsy@gmail.com>
* pkg/registry/core/service/storage: add two test cases for Service REST TestServiceRegistryInternalTrafficPolicyClusterThenLocal and TestServiceRegistryInternalTrafficPolicyLocalThenCluster
Signed-off-by: Andrew Sy Kim <kim.andrewsy@gmail.com>
* pkg/registry/core/service: update strategy unit tests to expect default
internalTrafficPolicy=Cluster
Signed-off-by: Andrew Sy Kim <kim.andrewsy@gmail.com>
* pkg/proxy/ipvs: fix unit test Test_EndpointSliceReadyAndTerminatingLocal to use internalTrafficPolicy=Cluster
Signed-off-by: Andrew Sy Kim <kim.andrewsy@gmail.com>
* pkg/apis/core: update fuzzers to set Service internalTrafficPolicy field
Signed-off-by: Andrew Sy Kim <kim.andrewsy@gmail.com>
* pkg/api/service/testing: refactor Service test fixtures to use Tweak funcs
Signed-off-by: Andrew Sy Kim <kim.andrewsy@gmail.com>
1. add AllocateLoadBalancerNodePorts fields in specs for validation test cases
2. update fuzzer
3. in resource quota e2e, allocate node port for loadbalancer type service and
exceed the node port quota
Signed-off-by: Hanlin Shi <shihanlin9@gmail.com>
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Curating Owners: pkg/api
cc @lavalamp @smarterclayton @erictune @thockin @bgrant0607
In an effort to expand the existing pool of reviewers and establish a
two-tiered review process (first someone lgtms and then someone
experienced in the project approves), we are adding new reviewers to
existing owners files.
If You Care About the Process:
------------------------------
We did this by algorithmically figuring out who’s contributed code to
the project and in what directories. Unfortunately, that doesn’t work
well: people that have made mechanical code changes (e.g change the
copyright header across all directories) end up as reviewers in lots of
places.
Instead of using pure commit data, we generated an excessively large
list of reviewers and pruned based on all time commit data, recent
commit data and review data (number of PRs commented on).
At this point we have a decent list of reviewers, but it needs one last
pass for fine tuning.
Also, see https://github.com/kubernetes/contrib/issues/1389.
TLDR:
-----
As an owner of a sig/directory and a leader of the project, here’s what
we need from you:
1. Use PR https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/35715 as an example.
2. The pull-request is made editable, please edit the `OWNERS` file to
remove the names of people that shouldn't be reviewing code in the
future in the **reviewers** section. You probably do NOT need to modify
the **approvers** section. Names asre sorted by relevance, using some
secret statistics.
3. Notify me if you want some OWNERS file to be removed. Being an
approver or reviewer of a parent directory makes you a reviewer/approver
of the subdirectories too, so not all OWNERS files may be necessary.
4. Please use ALIAS if you want to use the same list of people over and
over again (don't hesitate to ask me for help, or use the pull-request
above as an example)
