Automatic merge from submit-queue
fix typo on federation/pkg/dnsprovider/plugins.go
**What this PR does / why we need it**: Increase code readability
**Which issue this PR fixes** *(optional, in `fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)` format, will close that issue when PR gets merged)*: fixes #
**Special notes for your reviewer**: just fix one minor mistake as first contribution
**Release note**:
```release-note
```
Automatic merge from submit-queue
create kuberentes-discovery image
Creates an image for `kubernetes-discovery` since this is the API registration, aggregation, and proxy image.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
fix incorrect parameter pass to metrics.Monitor method call in ServeHTTP
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
before this PR:
1. `httpCode` is evaluated when defer statement executes, so all later assignments to `httpCode` is actually ineffectual. this obviously is not the design purpose.
2. `w.Header().Get("Content-Type")` is evaluated when defer statement executes, so all later `w.Header().Set("Content-Type",xxx)` ( in `writeNegotiated` ) is ineffectual to `metrics.Monitor`, i think this also is not the design purpose.
after this PR:
1. `httpCode` and `w.Header().Get("Content-Type")` is evaluated when the defered anonymous function executes, so `metrics.Monitor` will get correct `httpCode` and `Content-Type` field value.
2. in `ServeHTTP` method there is not any modification to `req` parameter, so it's safe to defer its evaluation.
Signed-off-by: bruceauyeung <ouyang.qinhua@zte.com.cn>
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Coreos kube-up now with less cloud init
This update includes significant refactoring. It moves almost all of the
logic into bash scripts, modeled after the `gci` cluster scripts.
The reason to do this is:
1. Avoid duplicating the saltbase manifests by reusing gci's parsing logic (easier maintenance)
2. Take an incremental step towards sharing more code between gci/trusty/coreos, again for better maintenance
3. Pave the way for making future changes (e.g. improved rkt support, kubelet support) easier to share
The primary differences from the gci scripts are the following:
1. Use of the `/opt/kubernetes` directory over `/home/kubernetes`
2. Support for rkt as a runtime
3. No use of logrotate
4. No use of `/etc/default/`
5. No logic related to noexec mounts or gci-specific firewall-stuff
It will make sense to move 2 over to gci, as well as perhaps a few other small improvements. That will be a separate PR for ease of review.
Ref #29720, this is a part of that because it removes a copy of them.
Fixes#24165
cc @yifan-gu
Since this logic largely duplicates logic from the gci folder, it would be nice if someone closely familiar with that gave an OK or made sure I didn't fall into any gotchas related to that, so cc @andyzheng0831
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Moved kubemark master from Debian to GCI
This PR fixes issue #37484
Kubemark master now runs on GCI instead of Debian, taking it one step closer to a real cluster master.
Primary changes:
1. changing master VM image/OS in kubemark's config-default.sh to debian
2. moving kubelet to systemd from supervisord
3. changing directory for cert/key/csv files from /srv/kubernetes to /etc/srv/kubernetes
cc @kubernetes/sig-scalability-misc @wojtek-t @gmarek
Automatic merge from submit-queue
fix typo
Signed-off-by: yupeng <yu.peng36@zte.com.cn>
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
**Which issue this PR fixes** *(optional, in `fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)` format, will close that issue when PR gets merged)*: fixes #
**Special notes for your reviewer**:
**Release note**:
```release-note
```
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Add test to detach a pd whose node was deleted
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
A test for the following issue :
If a node with a GCE PD attached is deleted (before the volume is detached), subsequent attempts by the attach/detach controller to detach it should not fail.
**Bonus** :Added additional code to ensure that the pd can still be attached to a different node.
Edit : Removed it as it was making the test much slower.
https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/29358
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Unmount operation should not fail if volume is already unmounted
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
If the volume is already unmounted from the pod, another unmount operation should not fail.
fixes: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/37657
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 38426, 38917, 38891, 38935)
Remove cluster/mesos from hack/verify-flags/exceptions.txt
`cluster/mesos` scripts was removed; so remove it from `hack/verify-flags/exceptions.txt`.
The diff was generated by `hack/verify-flags-underscore.py -e > hack/verify-flags/exceptions.txt`.
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 38426, 38917, 38891, 38935)
Support different image during GCE node upgrade
**What this PR does / why we need it**: It lets GCE upgrade tests upgrade to a GCI node image.
**Which issue this PR fixes**: fixes#37855
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 38426, 38917, 38891, 38935)
if statement must be true
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
if len(metrics.Items)==0, the function would been returned. so the statement if len(metrics.Items) > 0 is redudant, it must be true.
**Special notes for your reviewer**:
**Release note**:
```release-note
```
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Changed default scsi controller type in vSphere Cloud Provider
This PR changes default scsi controller to ```pvscsi``` in vSphere Cloud Provider. Fixes#37527
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Curating Owners: pkg/apiserver
cc @lavalamp @smarterclayton @nikhiljindal
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)
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Curating Owners: pkg/registry
cc @lavalamp @smarterclayton @wojtek-t
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)
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Curating Owners: pkg/client
cc @lavalamp @caesarxuchao @mikedanese @timothysc @smarterclayton @krousey @deads2k
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)
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Curating Owners: hack/jenkins
cc @rmmh @spxtr @ixdy @fejta
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)
Automatic merge from submit-queue
pkg/apiserver: split up monolithic package
**Based on** https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/38191
This is a first step to integrate pkg/apiserver with pkg/genericapiserver into a common package structure. For this
- pkg/apiserver is cleaned up from code which does not belong there,
- split up into pkg/apiserver, pkg/apiserver/handlers{,/negotation,/helpers,/errors}
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Reduce decode times by changing the kubectl.Filter(runtime.Object, *PrintOptions)'s return values
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
In kubectl/cmd/get.go, we use the function filterFuncs.Filter() to decode data and filter the object. But in the following function printer.PrintObj() decodes the data again.
I made these modifications to reduce the decoding times by changing the filterFuncs.Filter()'s returned values. We can get the decoded object from this function and pass it to the following printer.PrintObj(), so not to waste time to decode again.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Curating Owners: cluster/juju
cc @castrojo @mbruzek @chuckbutler @marcoceppi
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)
- move rest handler into handlers package
- move errors into handlers/errors package
- move negotation code into handlers/negotation package
- move http response writer helpers into handlers/responsewriter package
- split up pkg/apiserver/apiserver.go
Note: this is only an intermediate step towards a proper genericapiserver
package hierarchy.
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 38525, 38977)
add service status detection to kubernetes-discovery
This adds an inspection of services and endpoints before adding the APIService to kubernetes-discovery. This keeps a single bad API service from killing old clients since proxying will fail.
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 38525, 38977)
Prevent json decoder panic on invalid input
Related downstream issue: https://github.com/openshift/origin/issues/12132
```
# Can be replicated on kubectl with:
$ cat panic.json
{
"kind": "Pod",
"apiVersion": "v1",
"metadata": {
"name": "",
"labels": {
"name": ""
},
"generateName": "",
"namespace": "",
"annotations": []
},
"spec": {}
},
$ kubectl create -f panic.json --validate=false
```
**Release note**:
```release-note
release-note-none
```
This patch handles cases where `ioutil.ReadAll` will return a single
character output on an invalid json input, causing the `Decode` method
to panic when it tries to calculate the line number for the syntax
error. The example below would cause a panic due to the trailing comma
at the end:
```
{
"kind": "Pod",
"apiVersion": "v1",
"metadata": {
"name": "",
"labels": {
"name": ""
},
"generateName": "",
"namespace": "",
"annotations": []
},
"spec": {}
},
```
@kubernetes/cli-review @fabianofranz
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 38942, 38958)
Added MULTIZONE flag to e2e remove master script.
Added MULTIZONE flag to e2e remove master script. The script is used by HA tests which set-up multizone cluster.
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 38942, 38958)
Refactor port allocation logic a little, deflake tests.
This should fix#38323 for real.
@xiangpengzhao @rmmh @justinsb
Switch to manually cranking over the port filling logic, since there was a race between the allocate logic and the check to see if the port was freed up.
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 38080, 38903)
prevent negotation on connections that dont' require it
Not all clientconfigs require negotiation. Before there was a patch (hardcoded to an instance variable) that allowed this. This updates the code to allow the same as before.
@kubernetes/sig-cli @fabianofranz
@ncdc you'll want to pick
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 34353, 33837, 38878, 38961)
Reduce amount of allocations in cacher
Currently we are unnecessary copying stuff around in cacher.
This results in __tens of megabytes__ of allocations per __second__ in large clusters. This in turn results in expensive GC. Should help with metrics.
@gmarek
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 34353, 33837, 38878)
Revert "daemonset: bail out after we enqueue once"
I get overzealous sometimes.
Reverts kubernetes/kubernetes#38780
Kubernetes Submit Queue