Skip to content
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

Bug 1860229: Fail machine if create request doesn't succeed #155

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 8, 2020
Merged

Bug 1860229: Fail machine if create request doesn't succeed #155

merged 1 commit into from
Sep 8, 2020

Conversation

alexander-demicev
Copy link

Fail machine if create request doesn't succeed.
For spot instances when the max price is lower than the current spot price, we should fail the machine. Currently, we are constantly trying to provision it. Azure error types are not great, so I think this is the cleanest way to fail machines.
This approach will also fail the machines in other cases like reaching quota limits.

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added bugzilla/severity-medium Referenced Bugzilla bug's severity is medium for the branch this PR is targeting. bugzilla/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. labels Aug 3, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@alexander-demichev: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1860229, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state. The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug
  • bug is open, matching expected state (open)
  • bug target release (4.6.0) matches configured target release for branch (4.6.0)
  • bug is in the state ASSIGNED, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, ON_DEV, POST, POST)

In response to this:

Bug 1860229: Fail machine if create request doesn't succeed

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.

Comment on lines +612 to +615
var detailedError autorest.DetailedError
if errors.As(err, &detailedError) && detailedError.Message == "Failure sending request" {
return machinecontroller.InvalidMachineConfiguration("failure sending request for machine %s", s.scope.Machine.Name)
}

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Are we going to see the actual error logged anywhere when this happens?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This error will be returned by reconciler's Create(), I'd expect the machine controller to log it somewhere.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok, wonder if there's any more information than Failure sending request that we could extract to improve the UX?

Copy link

@JoelSpeed JoelSpeed left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Might be good to improve the logging if at all possible, non-blocking though

/approve

Comment on lines +612 to +615
var detailedError autorest.DetailedError
if errors.As(err, &detailedError) && detailedError.Message == "Failure sending request" {
return machinecontroller.InvalidMachineConfiguration("failure sending request for machine %s", s.scope.Machine.Name)
}

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok, wonder if there's any more information than Failure sending request that we could extract to improve the UX?

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: JoelSpeed

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 /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Sep 7, 2020
@JoelSpeed
Copy link

/retest

@enxebre
Copy link
Member

enxebre commented Sep 8, 2020

/lgtm
/retest

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Sep 8, 2020
@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

2 similar comments
@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit 7276393 into openshift:master Sep 8, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@alexander-demichev: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged:

Bugzilla bug 1860229 has been moved to the MODIFIED state.

In response to this:

Bug 1860229: Fail machine if create request doesn't succeed

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.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. bugzilla/severity-medium Referenced Bugzilla bug's severity is medium for the branch this PR is targeting. bugzilla/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants