Automatic merge from submit-queue
Curating Owners: pkg/controller
cc @jsafrane @mikedanese @bprashanth @derekwaynecarr @thockin @saad-ali
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
perfectly: 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.
## 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 add
the names of people that should be reviewing code in the future in the **reviewers** section. You probably do NOT need to modify the **approvers** section.
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)
Automatic merge from submit-queue
bump log level on service status update
ref: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/38349
I tried to reproduce the problem in #38349 and failed. Not sure why service status update failed and service controller skip status update in the next round. What I have observed is that if service status update failed due to conflict, the next round of processServiceUpdate will correct it.
Bumping log level to get a better signal when it occurs.
Many providers need to do some sort of node name -> IP or instanceID
lookup before they can use the list of hostnames passed to
EnsureLoadBalancer/UpdateLoadBalancer.
This change just passes the full Node object instead of simply the node
name, allowing providers to use the node's provider ID and cached
addresses without additional lookups. Using `node.Name` reproduces the
old behaviour.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
controller/service: minor cleanup
1. always handle short case first for if statement
2. do not capitalize error message
3. put the mutex before the fields it protects
4. prefer switch over if elseif.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Generated clients can return their RESTClients, RESTClient can return its RateLimiter
cc @lavalamp @krousey @wojtek-t @smarterclayton @timothysc
Ref. #22421
This is a better abstraction than passing in specific pieces of the
Service that each of the cloudproviders may or may not need. For
instance, many of the providers don't need a region, yet this is passed
in. Similarly many of the providers want a string IP for the load
balancer, but it passes in a converted net ip. Affinity is unused by
AWS. A provider change may also require adding a new parameter which has
an effect on all other cloud provider implementations.
Further, this will simplify adding provider specific load balancer
options, such as with labels or some other metadata. For example, we
could add labels for configuring the details of an AWS elastic load
balancer, such as idle timeout on connections, whether it is
internal or external, cross-zone load balancing, and so on.
Authors: @chbatey, @jsravn
The load balancer's name is determined by the service's UID. If the
service's UID has changed (presumably due to a delete and recreate),
then we need to recreate the load balancer as well to avoid eventually
leaking the old one.
Re-GET the service object when we process it rather than trusting the
delta. This will make for a lot more service get requests given that we
resync all the services every 5 minutes, but will avoid re-ordering of
updates and continually retrying stale updates, as has been described in
a few other issues and PRs.
I can't revert with github which says "Sorry, this pull request couldn’t be
reverted automatically. It may have already been reverted, or the content may
have changed since it was merged."
Reverts commit: 0c191e787b
We previously made the cloudproviders take on the responsibility of deleting
existing load balancers; this lets us simplify the servicecontroller logic
and also lays the groundwork for more efficient cloudprovider LB implementations
to do an in-place change on a LB.
Previously the servicecontroller would do the delete, but by having the cloudprovider
take that task on, we can later remove it from the servicecontroller, and the
cloudprovider can do something more efficient.
