Add vSphere external cloud provider

[pierreyves-lebrun]

What type of PR is this?
/kind feature

What this PR does / why we need it:
Implement external vSphere cloud provider as per #5309.
The in-tree vSphere cloud provider has been deprecated so the out-of-tree one should now be used.

Tested on vSphere 6.7 U3.

Special notes for your reviewer:
In order to keep both working, I added new vSphere configuration variables which are the same as the old ones but prefixed with external_

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:
Users should use the new external vSphere cloud provider rather than the old in-tree one.

Special thanks to @alijahnas as this PR is based on his previous work.

[k8s-ci-robot]

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.

---

• If you've already signed a CLA, it's possible we don't have your GitHub username or you're using a different email address. Check your existing CLA data and verify that your email is set on your git commits.
• If you signed the CLA as a corporation, please sign in with your organization's credentials at https://identity.linuxfoundation.org/projects/cncf to be authorized.
• If you have done the above and are still having issues with the CLA being reported as unsigned, please log a ticket with the Linux Foundation Helpdesk: https://support.linuxfoundation.org/
• Should you encounter any issues with the Linux Foundation Helpdesk, send a message to the backup e-mail support address at: login-issues@jira.linuxfoundation.org

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]

Welcome @pierreyves-lebrun!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/kubespray 🎉. 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/kubespray 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]

Hi @pierreyves-lebrun. 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]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: pierreyves-lebrun
To complete the pull request process, please assign ant31
You can assign the PR to them by writing /assign @ant31 in a comment when ready.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

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

[pierreyves-lebrun]

/assign @ant31
/assign @alijahnas

[pierreyves-lebrun]

Signed the CLA

[Miouge1]

/check-cla

[Miouge1]

Thank you for your contribution, there are a couple of CI errors to resolve:

• markdownlint see output
• yamllint see output

Moreover it looks like your GitHub user is not associated with the commit email address which makes the CLA bot complain.

[alijahnas]

Hi @pierreyves-lebrun Thanks for the work, it's a great effort!
I would ask you if you could separate the CSI code from the CPI code as it is the case between OpenStack Cinder CSI #5184 and OpenStack CPI #5491
It is redundant it is true, but this is to keep the code homogeneous as you can see with other implementations. We have a csi_driver folder and a external_cloud_controller folder under roles/kubernetes-apps
Maybe at some time when we have all CSIs and CPIs from the major cloud providers implemented, we could join the two in one deployment and bring the csi folder to external, but for now the CPIs are not all available from the official maintainers, they are not bundled, they are in separate github repositories etc.
@Miouge1 I don't know what you think about the separation of CSI and CPI. Should we proceed with it, or is it better to leave everything together for vsphere as it mutualises the parameters? I would eventually work on bringing the CPIs for other cloud providers as I did with the CSIs but they are not all fully available.
Also @pierreyves-lebrun, did you test the code with a master node and a worker node separated? As it sometimes brings up problems. Thanks.

[pierreyves-lebrun]

Many thanks for the review!

I would ask you if you could separate the CSI code from the CPI code as it is the case between OpenStack Cinder CSI #5184 and OpenStack CPI #5491

I don’t mind splitting the CSI and CPI code, @Miouge1 I’d also like to get your input on this.

Also @pierreyves-lebrun, did you test the code with a master node and a worker node separated? As it sometimes brings up problems. Thanks.

I am not sure to understand your question, could you elaborate on the tests I should conduct?

[pierreyves-lebrun]

Thank you for your contribution, there are a couple of CI errors to resolve:

• markdownlint see output
• yamllint see output

Those are now resolved.

Moreover it looks like your GitHub user is not associated with the commit email address which makes the CLA bot complain.

My bad, my commit was using different user information.
I amended the PR so that the commit and CLA user info match.

[alijahnas]

Many thanks for the review!

I would ask you if you could separate the CSI code from the CPI code as it is the case between OpenStack Cinder CSI #5184 and OpenStack CPI #5491

I don’t mind splitting the CSI and CPI code, @Miouge1 I’d also like to get your input on this.

Also @pierreyves-lebrun, did you test the code with a master node and a worker node separated? As it sometimes brings up problems. Thanks.

I am not sure to understand your question, could you elaborate on the tests I should conduct?

It's just about launching the deployment with an inventory where you have one master and one worker node. Sometimes you can't see some errors when you have only one node playing the master and the worker at the same time.

[pierreyves-lebrun]

It's just about launching the deployment with an inventory where you have one master and one worker node. Sometimes you can't see some errors when you have only one node playing the master and the worker at the same time.

Oh I see, that’s what you meant!

I always run my tests on a 3 masters - 3 workers cluster so I should be fine on that one.

[alijahnas]

It's just about launching the deployment with an inventory where you have one master and one worker node. Sometimes you can't see some errors when you have only one node playing the master and the worker at the same time.

Oh I see, that’s what you meant!

I always run my tests on a 3 masters - 3 workers cluster so I should be fine on that one.

That's way enough! "Qui peut le plus peut le moins" :D

[pierreyves-lebrun]

/retest

[k8s-ci-robot]

@pierreyves-lebrun: Cannot trigger testing until a trusted user reviews the PR and leaves an /ok-to-test message.

In response to this:

/retest

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.

[pierreyves-lebrun]

That's way enough! "Qui peut le plus peut le moins" :D

Aha, je suppose oui! :-)

I separated the CSI code from the CPI code, could you review my PR again please?

[alijahnas]

Sure I will :D

/ok-to-test

[alijahnas]

/reopen

[k8s-ci-robot]

@alijahnas: Failed to re-open PR: state cannot be changed. The vsphere branch was force-pushed or recreated.

In response to this:

/reopen

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.

[pierreyves-lebrun]

Yep sorry I screwed things up when resolving conflicts, the CI tests couldn't run so I made a force push which is causing issues now.

I am happy to close this PR and resubmit a new one if that makes things easier.

[alijahnas]

Can you add also the deployment of a storage class deployment like here: https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/vsphere-csi-driver/tree/master/example ?
I is done through the persistent volumes:
https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/kubespray/blob/master/docs/azure-csi.md
https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/kubespray/blob/master/roles/kubernetes-apps/persistent_volumes/azuredisk-csi/tasks/main.yml

[alijahnas]

Yep sorry I screwed things up when resolving conflicts, the CI tests couldn't run so I made a force push which is causing issues now.

I am happy to close this PR and resubmit a new one if that makes things easier.

Yeah no worries. I don't know what is the procedure in this case. @Miouge1 should know better.

[pierreyves-lebrun]

I made all the changes, @alijahnas could you please review them once @Miouge1 re-opens the PR?

[pierreyves-lebrun]

Unless I get a reply I’ll resubmit my work as another PR, vSphere CSI 2.0 is coming anyway:

kubernetes-sigs/vsphere-csi-driver#151

[alijahnas]

I am alright with that 👍

[Miouge1]

@pierreyves-lebrun sometimes it's easier to open a new PR than to fix a broken merge or rebase :D

In practice when you need to "update from latest master" or "rebase on latest master", here is what I do:

git checkout master
git pull upstream master
git checkout my-branch
git rebase master

Then if there are any conflicts you have to resolve them as they show up and git add the files and git rebase --continue after that.