This fixes e2e test for provisioning - it expects that provisioned volumes
are bound quickly.
Majority of this patch is update of test framework needs to initialize the
controller appropriately.
- Add reclaim policy to newVolume() call.
- Implement reactor Volumes().Get().
- Implement mock volume plugin.
- Add recycler tests.
- Add a synchronization condition to controller.scheduleOperation
- we need to pause the controller here, let the test to do some bad things
to the controller and test error cases in recycleVolumeOperation.
Test framework gets more and more complicated... But this is the last piece,
I promise.
We need to keep list of running recyclers, deleters and provisioners in
memory in order not to start a new recycling/deleting/provisioning twice
for the same volume/claim.
This will be eventually replaced by GoRoutineMap from PR #24838.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Add init containers to pods
This implements #1589 as per proposal #23666
Incorporates feedback on #1589, creates parallel structure for InitContainers and Containers, adds validation for InitContainers that requires name uniqueness, and comments on a number of implications of init containers.
This is a complete alpha implementation.
<!-- Reviewable:start -->
---
This change is [<img src="http://reviewable.k8s.io/review_button.svg" height="35" align="absmiddle" alt="Reviewable"/>](http://reviewable.k8s.io/reviews/kubernetes/kubernetes/23567)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
Automatic merge from submit-queue
prevent nil pointer when starting controllers before running the shar…
Fixes https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/25643.
https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/23795 changed initialization order, so the controller isn't guaranteed to be present at startup.
@mqliang @wojtek-t I'm pretty sure that we're not guaranteed to get back the correct `cache.Indexer` or `cache.Store` either. I'll look at re-plumbing the `AddIndexer` path to use the same instance so that its safe to use again.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
test: Call forgotten resttest test
PR #3789 introduced this test, but it was never called.
This test was created, but never called.
Written, but never run.
It has neither flaked nor asserted. At its inception it was deserted.
My change gives this test a chance, to at long last finally pass.
The resttest stuff is a bit complicated and I'm not totally sure I put it in the right place @smarterclayton, want to double check this change makes sense?
