This makes it more obvious that they run together and makes the upcoming
rate-limited syncs easier.
Also make test use ints for ports, so it's easier to see when a port is
a literal value vs a name.
This is a weird function, but I didn't want to change any semantics
until the tests are in place. Testing exposed one bug where stale
connections of renamed ports were not marked stale.
There are other things that seem wrong here, more will follow.
Move the feature test to where we are activating the feature, rather
than where we detect locality. This is in service of better tests,
which is in service of less-frequent resyncing, which is going to
require refactoring.
Instead of copying the map, like OnServicesUpdate() used to do and which
was copied into buildServiceMap() to preserve semantics while creating
testcases, start with a new empty map and do deletion checking later.
The API docs say:
// ServiceTypeExternalName means a service consists of only a reference to
// an external name that kubedns or equivalent will return as a CNAME
// record, with no exposing or proxying of any pods involved.
which implies that ExternalName services should be ignored for proxy
purposes.
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 35884, 37305, 37369, 37429, 35679)
fix mixleading warning message regarding kube-proxy nodeIP initializa…
The current warning message implies that the operator should restart kube-proxy with some flag related to node IP which can be very misleading.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Cover port_allocator_test with more conditions
The test cases of port_allocator_test should cover more conditions, such as `rangeAllocator.used.Bit`.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Bug fix. Incoming UDP packets not reach newly deployed services
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
Incoming UDP packets not reach newly deployed services when old connection's state in conntrack is not cleared. When a packet arrives, it will not go through NAT table again, because it is not "the first" packet. The PR fix the issue
**Which issue this PR fixes**
Fixes#31983
xref https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/8795
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Curating Owners: pkg/proxy
cc @thockin
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)
Wojciech Tyczynski