fix(job_test) test case should not include worker service

[leileiwan]

hi,
the code fix the issue #228

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @leileiwan. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubeflow 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.

[leileiwan]

/assign @richardsliu

[johnugeorge]

/ok-to-test

[coveralls]

Coverage remained the same at 85.345% when pulling 22ea5ea on leileiwan:master into 5522f91 on kubeflow:master.

[johnugeorge]

can you do a rebase?

[gaocegege]

It's a little hack. I am wondering if we need it

[leileiwan]

Because function "deletePodsAndServices" will delete all the services of pod, so if we don not change the function "deletePodsAndServices"(only delete the master service), maybe it's difficult to pass the test case without change the function DeleteService(FakeServiceControl)

func (pc *PyTorchController) deletePodsAndServices(job *pyv1.PyTorchJob, pods []*v1.Pod) error {
	if len(pods) == 0 {
		return nil
	}

	// Delete nothing when the cleanPodPolicy is None or Running.
	if *job.Spec.CleanPodPolicy == common.CleanPodPolicyNone ||
		*job.Spec.CleanPodPolicy == common.CleanPodPolicyRunning {
		return nil
	}

	for _, pod := range pods {
		if err := pc.PodControl.DeletePod(pod.Namespace, pod.Name, job); err != nil {
			return err
		}
		// Pod and service have the same name, thus the service could be deleted using pod's name.
		if err := pc.ServiceControl.DeleteService(pod.Namespace, pod.Name, job); err != nil {
			return err
		}
	}
	return nil
}

[gaocegege]

Gotcha. SGTM. I think it is a potential issue in our code base. We can have another PR to avoid deleting unexisting worker services.

[leileiwan]

yes, it will be better to avoid deleting unexisting worker services.

[johnugeorge]

Can you take this cleanup in a separate PR?

[johnugeorge]

@leileiwan can you create an issue to track this

[leileiwan]

@johnugeorge ,ok

[gaocegege]

/lgtm

Thanks for your contribution! 🎉 👍

Waiting for johnu's approval.

[johnugeorge]

Thanks for your contribution.
/approve

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: johnugeorge

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:

• OWNERS [johnugeorge]

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