cloud-provider-azure
cloud-provider-azure copied to clipboard
kubernetes-sigs
Add support for specifying probe protocol / probe port via annotation per service port
Fixes #1505 /kind feature
Added: support for new annotations **service.beta.kubernetes.io/port_<num>_health-probe_protocol** and **service.beta.kubernetes.io/port_<num>_health-probe_port** to allow explicitly setting the health probe protocol individually for each service port. Useful for services like Istio which have health check seperate from the main service port.
The committers listed above are authorized under a signed CLA.
- :white_check_mark: login: vsabella / name: Vito Sabella (d834d6e220ca4e72eb08af24806ed6dacfbbef44)
![linux-foundation-easycla[bot] avatar](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/17893?v=4 "Published by a pub.dev verified publisher"){kind=small}
Welcome @vsabella!
It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/cloud-provider-azure 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.
You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.
You can also check if kubernetes-sigs/cloud-provider-azure has its own contribution guidelines.
You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.
If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!
Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. :smiley:
Hi @vsabella. Thanks for your PR.
I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.
Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.
I understand the commands that are listed here.
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.
Coverage decreased (-0.004%) to 80.09% when pulling 0a869f4a64cd5f22d508aa7707d1e69d2d17f463 on vsabella:feature/azure-load-balancer-per-port-protocol into cbb4bcfd80d22a3b20eecd23a42ab23eecc50dfd on kubernetes-sigs:master.
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED
This pull-request has been approved by: vsabella To complete the pull request process, please ask for approval from martinforreal after the PR has been reviewed.
The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment
We may need to refactor this part because if we enabled port/protocol customization, there will be duplicated probe rules. we may need to check if new probe rule already exists in probe rule sets.(Line 2097 in azure loadbalancer.go )
@MartinForReal I'm not sure I get under what circumstances this happens - is it when we are set to externalTrafficPolicy: Local ? or protocol is something else (like UDP/STCP/etc)
If you can give me an example i'm happy to add some tests to check it out.
In the Istio scenario, A customized probe rule whose target port is 150xx will be generated for port 80. And a probe rule whose target port is 150xx will be generated for port 150xx (default provider behavior). And these two rules may have different configurations (probe protocol is different). I think we can avoid this rule conflict by changing the probe rule names.
In the Istio scenario, A customized probe rule whose target port is 150xx will be generated for port 80. And a probe rule whose target port is 150xx will be generated for port 150xx (default provider behavior). And these two rules may have different configurations (probe protocol is different). I think we can avoid this rule conflict by changing the probe rule names.
Ah yes, I see your point. Is that really a problem though other than just being duplicated? Like a capacity or performance issue with LB
We could just make the key the probe configuration vs the backend configuration as it is now. That's what you see with pod status monitor / externalTrafficPolicy: Local
@MartinForReal Let me write up a spec for the change in rule generation to rule out duplicates. I'll link a wiki page here we can comment on
I'll ping you in a day or so once we have time to have something to review
@vsabella: PR needs rebase.
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.
@MartinForReal Let me write up a spec for the change in rule generation to rule out duplicates. I'll link a wiki page here we can comment on
I'll ping you in a day or so once we have time to have something to review
Still working on it - had to take a few days off but I'll circulate the draft spec soon.
@vsabella: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:
| Test name | Commit | Details | Required | Rerun command |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| pull-cloud-provider-azure-e2e-ccm-vmss-basic-lb | 0a869f4a64cd5f22d508aa7707d1e69d2d17f463 | link | true | /test pull-cloud-provider-azure-e2e-ccm-vmss-basic-lb |
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR.
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. I understand the commands that are listed here.