-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 41.6k
Allow all probes and lifecycle for restartable init containers #119168
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Allow all probes and lifecycle for restartable init containers #119168
Conversation
|
This issue is currently awaiting triage. If a SIG or subproject determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the The Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
|
/sig node |
ebd9e26 to
eaa563a
Compare
eaa563a to
aeeec82
Compare
|
/test pull-kubernetes-node-e2e-containerd-sidecar-containers |
aeeec82 to
0675c82
Compare
|
/test pull-kubernetes-node-e2e-containerd-sidecar-containers |
0675c82 to
26a7408
Compare
|
/test pull-kubernetes-node-e2e-containerd-sidecar-containers |
d3de630 to
72c8951
Compare
|
/test pull-kubernetes-node-e2e-containerd-sidecar-containers |
|
I have not been tracking this one - is it hoping to merge for 1.28? |
Yes, it is targeted at 1.28. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
/approve
for validation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
nit: Would you add a comment explaining this break as well? I spent a few minutes looking at the two above if statements and this break and it wasn't immediately obvious what the rationale is. It's probably right, I just wasn't able to figure it out just from looking at the code..
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
nit: Would you add a comment explaining this break as well? I spent a few minutes looking at the two above if statements and this break and it wasn't immediately obvious what the rationale is. It's probably right, I just wasn't able to figure it out just from looking at the code..
I think the current code is slightly wrong...
A restartable init container doesn't have to take into account its liveness probe when it determines to start the next init container.
will fix it soon.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
fixed kubelet to not take into account the container's livenessProbe when it decides to start the next init container.
8ca77dc to
7e670fd
Compare
|
/test pull-kubernetes-node-e2e-containerd-sidecar-containers |
7e670fd to
d029f0e
Compare
|
/test pull-kubernetes-node-e2e-containerd-sidecar-containers |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
/lgtm
/approve
|
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: 7e8554f6ad5af9ef45e4d35c55c68cc9a3681dcc
|
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: gjkim42, mrunalp, SergeyKanzhelev, thockin, Tusenka The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
| }) | ||
| }) | ||
|
|
||
| var _ = SIGDescribe("[NodeAlphaFeature:SidecarContainers][Feature:SidecarContainers] Restartable Init Container Lifecycle Hook", func() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
these tests have been flaking, with at least one of them failing in about 50% of the runs since they merged:
|
sidecar-specific job |
What type of PR is this?
/kind feature
/kind api-change
What this PR does / why we need it:
This is a follow-up PR for #116429
ContainersReadyConditionwith restartable init containersWhich issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
depends on #119179
ref: #115934
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?
wrote "none", as we already added a release note in #116429.
Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.: