Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
[SPARK-24551][K8S] Add integration tests for secrets - #21652
Conversation
f0d59cc to
7602dbcCompare@foxish@liyinan926@erikerlandson pls review. |
SparkQA
commented
Jun 28, 2018
Kubernetes integration test starting |
SparkQA
commented
Jun 28, 2018
Kubernetes integration test status failure |
SparkQA
commented
Jun 28, 2018
Test build #92408 has finished for PR 21652 at commit
|
SparkQA
commented
Jun 28, 2018
Kubernetes integration test starting |
SparkQA
commented
Jun 28, 2018
Test build #92409 has finished for PR 21652 at commit
|
SparkQA
commented
Jun 28, 2018
Kubernetes integration test status failure |
@foxish@erikerlandson I got this failure: "namespaces "59da2249348347a39391b4389ab418ab" not found." |
@felixcheung@liyinan926@ssuchter review pls. |
foxish
commented
Jul 2, 2018
jenkins, retest this please |
foxish
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks like a great start. I like that we're now getting the output from pod exec and validating it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm wondering if we should add these tests to a separate class? This file is growing in size and we can separate them out a bit for better code understanding.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You are right probably we should. Ok let me try do this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a pretty quick timeout. Is there some way to have a longer timeout but to return instantly if the watch command exits? E.g. some kind of "join" method call on the watch instance that itself has a timeout?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok will have a look. It does work because I guess its minikube and it is fast, I didn't see any issues. But might be a problem don't know.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@ssuchter I tried the approach here: https://github.com/fabric8io/kubernetes-client/blob/master/kubernetes-examples/src/main/java/io/fabric8/kubernetes/examples/ExecLoopExample.java
and also mentioned here:
https://github.com/fabric8io/kubernetes-client/blob/master/kubernetes-examples/src/main/java/io/fabric8/kubernetes/examples/ExecPipesExample.java#L60
Latches were not useful to me. The examples there use the timeout approach (actually I recall that I looked at the examples before writing the code here).
The ideal approach would be to check continuously on the watch output on a future (eg. look what this class does: https://github.com/fabric8io/kubernetes-client/blob/9b2128ca5f2362991c99640d8a0325d60741644c/kubernetes-client/src/main/java/io/fabric8/kubernetes/client/utils/InputStreamPumper.java) and wait until it completes with some time out. But that didnt work well so far for me.
So I guess that sleep is the most easy solution.
ssuchter
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This overall looks pretty nice, thanks! I had just a couple questions - please take a look.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should this be done before every test, or just the one that is using the secrets?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess we can add it before the specific test. My rationale was that this is something I require before the tests are run.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same question about every test versus just one of them.
SparkQA
commented
Jul 2, 2018
Kubernetes integration test starting |
SparkQA
commented
Jul 2, 2018
Kubernetes integration test status failure |
SparkQA
commented
Jul 2, 2018
Test build #92538 has finished for PR 21652 at commit
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@ssuchter moved the secret creation in here. I had the idea of using before and after and checking for a flag to identify the current test (scalatest with FunSuite does not give you that AFAIK) but I think this is cleaner.
SparkQA
commented
Jul 4, 2018
Kubernetes integration test starting |
SparkQA
commented
Jul 4, 2018
Test build #92610 has finished for PR 21652 at commit
|
SparkQA
commented
Jul 4, 2018
Kubernetes integration test status success |
9bd17b3 to
9de4a7aCompare@foxish@ssuchter I refactored the tests in different classes. There are some clear benefits now. |
SparkQA
commented
Jul 4, 2018
Kubernetes integration test starting |
shaneknapp
commented
Jul 17, 2018
test this please |
SparkQA
commented
Jul 17, 2018
Kubernetes integration test starting |
SparkQA
commented
Jul 17, 2018
Kubernetes integration test status failure |
SparkQA
commented
Jul 17, 2018
Test build #93204 has finished for PR 21652 at commit
|
shaneknapp
commented
Jul 17, 2018
test this please (i tied this build to amp-jenkins-staging-worker-02 to unblock things) |
SparkQA
commented
Jul 17, 2018
Kubernetes integration test starting |
SparkQA
commented
Jul 17, 2018
Kubernetes integration test status failure |
shaneknapp
commented
Jul 17, 2018
argh fixing 02 again and will retrigger then once it's done. i'm really sorry that things have been so flaky recently. |
SparkQA
commented
Jul 17, 2018
Test build #93205 has finished for PR 21652 at commit
|
shaneknapp
commented
Jul 17, 2018
test this please |
SparkQA
commented
Jul 17, 2018
Kubernetes integration test starting |
SparkQA
commented
Jul 17, 2018
Test build #93206 has finished for PR 21652 at commit
|
SparkQA
commented
Jul 17, 2018
Kubernetes integration test status success |
skonto
commented
Jul 18, 2018
@shaneknapp thanks, @srowen@foxish gentle ping. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I removed the package objects and replaced them with normal ones. The package statement was not ok and their naming convention was not following scala rules.
SparkQA
commented
Jul 18, 2018
Kubernetes integration test starting |
SparkQA
commented
Jul 18, 2018
Test build #93228 has finished for PR 21652 at commit
|
SparkQA
commented
Jul 18, 2018
Kubernetes integration test status success |
SparkQA
commented
Jul 19, 2018
Kubernetes integration test starting |
SparkQA
commented
Jul 19, 2018
Kubernetes integration test status success |
| NOCACHEARG= | ||
| BUILD_PARAMS= | ||
| while getopts f:mr:t:n:b: option | ||
| while getopts f:p:mr:t:n:b: option |
SparkQA
commented
Jul 20, 2018
Test build #93298 has finished for PR 21652 at commit
|
@felixcheung@srowen may I have a merge pls? |
srowen
commented
Jul 20, 2018
Merged to master |
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
How was this patch tested?
Manually by checking that secrets were added to the containers and by tuning the tests.