fix: use zones in the pre-existing frontend IP configurations for int… #1070
Conversation
pkg/provider/azure_test.go
Outdated
| @@ -1620,6 +1620,13 @@ func getInternalTestService(identifier string, requestedPorts ...int32) v1.Servi | |||
| svc.Annotations[consts.ServiceAnnotationLoadBalancerInternal] = consts.TrueAnnotationValue | |||
| return svc | |||
| } | |||
| func getInternalTestServiceWithAnnotation(identifier string, annotations map[string]string, requestedPorts ...int32) v1.Service { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How about implementing factory logic in getInternalTestServiceWithAnnotation and refactoring getInternalTestService instead? Other functions may reuse logics in annotations without duplicating service generation logic.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes, that should help for new test suites
|
/retest |
1 similar comment
|
/retest |
pkg/provider/azure_loadbalancer.go
Outdated
| } | ||
| if isInternal && az.useStandardLoadBalancer() && len(zones) > 0 && !az.HasExtendedLocation() { | ||
| newConfig.Zones = &zones | ||
| if !isFipChanged { // fetch zone information from API for new frontends |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could we wrap those new lines in a new function?
| @@ -1620,6 +1620,13 @@ func getInternalTestService(identifier string, requestedPorts ...int32) v1.Servi | |||
| svc.Annotations[consts.ServiceAnnotationLoadBalancerInternal] = consts.TrueAnnotationValue | |||
| return svc | |||
| } | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
gofmt the file? there should be an empty line between each functions
|
Could you fix the version in https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/cloud-provider-azure/blob/master/pkg/azureclients/loadbalancerclient/interface.go#L29 together? |
fixed |
|
/retest |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: feiskyer, nilo19 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 |
|
/retest |
[release-1.1] Cherry pick of #1070 to release-1.1
[release-1.23] Cherry pick of #1070 to release-1.23
…ernal LBs
What type of PR is this?
/kind bug
What this PR does / why we need it:
Keep the AZ in the pre-existing frontend IP configurations of internal LBs instead of always calling the zone API.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #1047
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?
Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.: