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

Feature: Add ability to customize node daemonset nodeselector #647

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 16, 2020
Merged

Feature: Add ability to customize node daemonset nodeselector #647

merged 1 commit into from
Dec 16, 2020

Conversation

pliu
Copy link
Contributor

@pliu pliu commented Dec 10, 2020

Is this a bug fix or adding new feature?
Feature

What is this PR about? / Why do we need it?
This allows users to customize the nodeSelector field of the daemonset deploying the ebs-csi-nodes the same way one can customize the nodeSelector of the deployment deploying the controllers. This is needed in the case of a hybrid cluster where some nodes are AWS hosts whereas others are not (the ebs-csi-nodes on the non-AWS hosts continuously crashloop).

What testing is done?
Verified that the Chart renders as expected

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for your pull request. Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

📝 Please follow instructions at https://git.k8s.io/community/CLA.md#the-contributor-license-agreement to sign the CLA.

It may take a couple minutes for the CLA signature to be fully registered; after that, please reply here with a new comment and we'll verify. Thanks.


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.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added cncf-cla: no Indicates the PR's author has not signed the CNCF CLA. needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Dec 10, 2020
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Welcome @pliu!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/aws-ebs-csi-driver 🎉. 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/aws-ebs-csi-driver 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. 😃

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @pliu. 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.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. and removed cncf-cla: no Indicates the PR's author has not signed the CNCF CLA. labels Dec 10, 2020
@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Dec 10, 2020

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 1385

  • 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
  • No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
  • Overall coverage remained the same at 81.713%

Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build 1384: 0.0%
Covered Lines: 1622
Relevant Lines: 1985

💛 - Coveralls

@ayberk
Copy link
Contributor

ayberk commented Dec 15, 2020

Thank you! Will take a look later.

/ok-to-test

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. and removed needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Dec 15, 2020
@ayberk
Copy link
Contributor

ayberk commented Dec 15, 2020

Can you bump the chart version to 0.7.1?

@pliu
Copy link
Contributor Author

pliu commented Dec 15, 2020

@ayberk done :)

@ayberk
Copy link
Contributor

ayberk commented Dec 15, 2020

/lgtm
/approve

Thank you!

note to self: we should ideally deploy only to aws nodes by default...

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Dec 15, 2020
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: ayberk, pliu

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

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Dec 15, 2020
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit 9873e22 into kubernetes-sigs:master Dec 16, 2020
@pliu
Copy link
Contributor Author

pliu commented Dec 16, 2020

/lgtm
/approve

Thank you!

note to self: we should ideally deploy only to aws nodes by default...

I imagine that would be a bit difficult since you'd need a Kubernetes-level label-equivalent (or just a label), that specifies which nodes are backed by AWS hosts. Currently, we're using a custom label to specify which nodes are backed by AWS hosts, but that label would need to be standardized if we wanted to make this default behavior.

Alternatively one could run it on every node and just be a no-op on non-AWS-host-backed nodes (though the argument could be made that that is unacceptable overhead).

@ayberk
Copy link
Contributor

ayberk commented Dec 16, 2020

Yeah we need a well-known label, which should be doable especially with the cloud-provider extraction. I'm not a big fan of no-op solution because it can be confusing. We have a workaround with this so it's a nice-to-have for later :)

@pliu
Copy link
Contributor Author

pliu commented Dec 16, 2020

Yeah we need a well-known label, which should be doable especially with the cloud-provider extraction. I'm not a big fan of no-op solution because it can be confusing. We have a workaround with this so it's a nice-to-have for later :)

Oh nice. I'll look into this cloud provider extraction thing (if you have a link I can start with, that'd be appreciated :)).

@ayberk
Copy link
Contributor

ayberk commented Dec 16, 2020

Context: https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/blob/master/keps/sig-cloud-provider/20180530-cloud-controller-manager.md

We're building a new version of cloud-provider-aws here, although it's in early stages: https://github.com/kubernetes/cloud-provider-aws#readme

@pliu pliu deleted the node-nodeselector branch April 10, 2021 16:53
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. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants