Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 36888, 38180, 38855, 38590)
dnsprovider: Expose route53 constructor
This enables testing when the dnsprovider is used externally (with a
mock Route53 API, as we do in kops), and also might be useful for
constructing with a particular client instance with extra options.
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 36888, 38180, 38855, 38590)
Fix variable shadowing in exponential backoff when deleting volumes
While https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/38339 implemented exponential backoff on
volume deletion, that PR suffers from a minor bug when error thrown on volume deletion is anything other than `VolumeInUse` errors - in which case exponential backoff will not work.
This PR fixes that. This PR also makes unit tests more deterministic because exponential backoff changed the way operations are permitted.
CC @jsafrane @childsb @wongma7
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 36888, 38180, 38855, 38590)
wrong pod reference in error message for volume attach timeout
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
when a disk mount times out you get the following error:
```
Warning FailedSync Error syncing pod, skipping: timeout expired waiting for volumes to attach/mount for pod "nginx"/"default". list of unattached/unmounted volumes=[data]
```
where the pod is referenced by "podname"/"namespace", but should be "namespace"/"podname".
**Which issue this PR fixes**
no issue number
**Special notes for your reviewer**:
untested :(
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Add a link to the kubeadm changelog from the main k8s changelog
@spiffxp @idvoretskyi @mikedanese @saad-ali A small addition to the changelog
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Update reference to dns sidecar (was dnsmasq-metrics); remove exec-healthz
-The image path is wrong -- I am waiting for the CI to pass here before pushing to google_containers-
This enables testing when the dnsprovider is used externally (with a
mock Route53 API, as we do in kops), and also might be useful for
constructing with a particular client instance with extra options.
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 35805, 36972, 39045)
Add e2e test to detach a pd whose node api object was deleted
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
`E2E Test for:`
If API object representing a node is deleted with a GCE PD still attached to that node, subsequent attempts by the attach/detach controller to detach it should not fail
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Implement kubeadm bootstrap token management
Creates bootstrap tokens as secrets per the specification in #30707
_WARNING_: These are not currently hooked up to the discovery service or the token it creates.
Still TODO:
- [x] delete tokens
- [x] merge with #35144 and adopt it's testing approach
- [x] determine if we want wholesale json output & templating like kubectl (we do not have an API object with the data we want here) may require a bit of plumbing.
- [x] allow specifying a token duration on the CLI
- [x] allow configuring the default token duration
- [x] hook up the initial token created during init
Sample output:
```
(root@centos1 ~) $ kubeadm token create
Running pre-flight checks
<cmd/token> Token secret created: f6dc69.c43e491752c4a0fd
(root@centos1 ~) $ kubeadm token create
Running pre-flight checks
<cmd/token> Token secret created: 8fad2f.e7b78c8a5f7c7b9a
(root@centos1 ~) $ kubeadm token list
Running pre-flight checks
ID TOKEN EXPIRATION
44d805 44d805.a4e78b6cf6435e33 23h
4f65bb 4f65bb.d006a3c7a0e428c9 23h
6a086e 6a086e.2ff99f0823236b5b 23h
8fad2f 8fad2f.e7b78c8a5f7c7b9a 23h
f6dc69 f6dc69.c43e491752c4a0fd 23h
f81653 f81653.9ab82a2926c7e985 23h
```
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Add test for CronJob generator
Per @janetkuo request this was split from #38614, it adds test for `CronJob` generator, and additionally copy labels to `JobTemplate`, to be consistent with how `Job` generator works.
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
```
Adds kubeadm subcommands to create, list, and delete bootstrap tokens.
Tokens can be created with a TTL duration, or 0 for tokens that will not
expire. The create command can also be used to specify your own token
(for use when bootstrapping masters and nodes in parallel), or update an
existing token's secret or ttl.
Marked "ex" for experimental for now as the boostrap controllers are not
yet hooked up in core.
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)
xilabao