-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 611
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
No automatic manager shutdown on demotion/removal #1829
Changes from all commits
5948e29
d79e0f5
7d57924
59b1a0a
be580ec
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Large diffs are not rendered by default.
Large diffs are not rendered by default.
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -41,8 +41,8 @@ message NodeSpec { | |
DRAIN = 2 [(gogoproto.enumvalue_customname) = "NodeAvailabilityDrain"]; | ||
} | ||
|
||
// Role defines the role the node should have. | ||
NodeRole role = 2; | ||
// DesiredRole defines the role the node should have. | ||
NodeRole desired_role = 2; | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. isn't this breaking api change? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Not in gRPC. If we rename the field in the JSON API, it would be. Not sure what we should do about that. We could either keep the current name in JSON, or back out this part of the change and keep There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. No, field number and type stay the same, so this won't break anything. |
||
|
||
// Membership controls the admission of the node into the cluster. | ||
Membership membership = 3; | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree that your suggestion of
reconciled_role
would be more clear here, since you're right that "observed" implies (to me at least) the role of the certificate the node is currently using.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My hesitation about this is that the worker is going to act on this field to trigger certificate renewals. "Reconciled role" has meaning to the manager, but not the worker. From the worker's perspective, "Get a new certificate if your role changes" makes sense, but "Get a new certificate if your reconciled role changes" doesn't make as much sense.
What about changing the field under
Spec
toDesiredRole
and leaving this one asRole
? I didn't think of that before, but as long as the field number doesn't change, it's fine to rename protobuf fields.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That'd make sense too. :) Thanks
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Renamed the
Spec
field toDesiredRole
, thanks.