-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6.5k
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
Fix etcd client generation #10769
Fix etcd client generation #10769
Conversation
Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request. |
90b81d0
to
df2eb4a
Compare
df2eb4a
to
aca9b0d
Compare
This should allow to catch several class of problem rather than just one -> from network plugin such as calico or cilium talking directly to the etcd.
This has two benefits: - We don't play the etcd role twice for no reason - We have access to the whole cluster (if needed) to use things like group_by.
aca9b0d
to
1906de6
Compare
/hold |
/hold cancel |
/kind bug |
/cc @cyclinder |
Thanks a lot @VannTen |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: cyclinder, VannTen, yankay 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 |
Nice fix! @VannTen /lgtm |
* ci: redefine multinode to node-etcd-client This should allow to catch several class of problem rather than just one -> from network plugin such as calico or cilium talking directly to the etcd. * Dynamically define etcd host range This has two benefits: - We don't play the etcd role twice for no reason - We have access to the whole cluster (if needed) to use things like group_by.
What type of PR is this?
/kind bug
What this PR does / why we need it:
Instead of running the etcd role twice (etcd:kube_control_plane / kube_node), with the second runs only necessary on setup requiring clients certs on
kube_node
host, we dynamically define whetherkube_node
needs to be in the play.Benefits:
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #10757
Special notes for your reviewer:
Regarding the releases notes since this is a fix of a regression not released yet, maybe we should not include it in the releases notes ? (aka it's just noise)
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: