Move merging of workflow section into webhook #168

kstrenkova · 2024-08-12T18:34:28Z

Currently, the merging of workflow section is done in controllers of related CRs. We want to move the merging logic into webhooks to make the process cleaner.

Depends on: #160

openshift-ci · 2024-08-12T18:34:32Z

Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request.
If you want CI signal for your change, please convert it to an actual PR.
You can still manually trigger a test run with /test all

lpiwowar

@kstrenkova, this is really nice progress! 🎉 I say we schedule a call and discuss details but generally speaking I think we can make this work. I've just tried to test this locally. I had to make some minor tweaks (see comments) for the merging to work on the TempestRun section on my machine.

Anyway, really good job! 👍 Even when you do not manage to finish this task and somebody will be working on it instead of you then you still laid a really good foundation here!

From our last conversation I was under the impression that this won't work. I think this will still require 2 - 3 PR updates and reviews but it is on a good path.

api/v1beta1/tempest_webhook.go

lpiwowar · 2024-09-24T12:57:12Z

controllers/tempest_controller.go

+func getTempestRun(instance *testv1beta1.Tempest, workflowStepNum int) testv1beta1.TempestRunSpec {
+	if workflowStepNum < len(instance.Spec.Workflow) {
+		wtRun := instance.Spec.Workflow[workflowStepNum].TempestRun
+		tRun := changeType(wtRun)
+		return tRun
+	}
+	return instance.Spec.TempestRun
+}
+
+func changeType(wtRun testv1beta1.WorkflowTempestRunSpec) testv1beta1.TempestRunSpec {
+	var tRun testv1beta1.TempestRunSpec
+
+	wtReflected := reflect.ValueOf(wtRun)
+	tReflected := reflect.ValueOf(&tRun).Elem()
+
+	for i := 0; i < wtReflected.NumField(); i++ {
+		tName := tReflected.Type().Field(i).Name
+		tValue := tReflected.Field(i)
+
+		wtValue := wtReflected.FieldByName(tName)
+		if !wtValue.IsNil() {
+			wtValue = wtValue.Elem()
+			tValue.Set(wtValue)
+		}
+	}
+	return tRun
+}


Nice solution! 🥳

I'm wondering whether we can bypass this somehow. I'm thinking about getting rid of the pointers entirely. But this can be a little bit tricky.

But even if we do not make the workflows work without the pointers then I think that calling a slight modification of this function at the beginning of the reconcile loop won't hurt.

Again, we can make this little bit more generic:).

lpiwowar · 2024-09-24T13:30:37Z

controllers/tempest_controller.go

+	return instance.Spec.TempestRun
+}
+
+func changeType(wtRun testv1beta1.WorkflowTempestRunSpec) testv1beta1.TempestRunSpec {


I think we should aim at making this function more generic by replacing the types with interface{}. The caller of the function will be responsible of casting the result to a correct type.

Suggested change

func changeType(wtRun testv1beta1.WorkflowTempestRunSpec) testv1beta1.TempestRunSpec {

func changeType(instance interface{}) instance interface{} {

controllers/tempest_controller.go

Currently, the merging of workflow section is done in controllers of related CRs. We want to move the merging logic into webhooks to make the process cleaner.

kstrenkova · 2024-10-22T12:48:22Z

I have added a new version of this patch that can also work with structures by calling the function for adding values from TempestRun section recursively. There is maybe needed a bit more generalization to get the functions working for all resources, but for Tempest this version should work.

lpiwowar

I think the PR is moving in the right direction. Nice work! 👍

I've added couple of comments @kstrenkova. Let me know what you think:).

lpiwowar · 2024-10-23T12:32:08Z

api/v1beta1/common_webhook.go

+                tRunValue := src.Field(i)
+                wtRunValue := dest.FieldByName(tRunName)
+
+                if wtRunValue.IsZero() && !tRunValue.IsZero() {


The use of IsZero() function is not 100 % accurate here because IsZero() returns true when variable e.g. concurrency is set to 0 [1].

What do you think @kstrenkova about this? Would it be a problem?

Suggested change

if wtRunValue.IsZero() && !tRunValue.IsZero() {

if wtRunValue.IsNil() {

You can also use wtRunValue.IsZero() it is an equivalent to wtRunValue.IsNil() when wtRunValue is a pointer.

[1] https://cs.opensource.google/go/go/+/refs/tags/go1.23.2:src/reflect/value.go;l=1572

Nice catch, I think the need for !tRunValue.IsNil is still there though 🤔 The problem was that if the value in tempestRun was nil, it would create an error.

Yes, you are right:

The Tempest "tempest-tests" is invalid: * spec.workflow[0].tempestRun.extraImagesType: Invalid value: "null": spec.workflow[0].tempestRun.extraImagesType in body must be of type array: "null" * spec.workflow[0].tempestRun.externalPlugin: Invalid value: "null": spec.workflow[0].tempestRun.externalPlugin in body must be of type array: "null" * spec.workflow[0].tempestRun.extraRPMs: Invalid value: "null": spec.workflow[0].tempestRun.extraRPMs in body must be of type array: "null"

Notice that the error only impacts arrays. We are trying to assign null to what should be a pointer to an array. Is there a way how to fix this? What about checking whether the array is empty in the tRun section and if it is then do not perform the assignment?

lpiwowar · 2024-10-23T12:23:02Z

api/v1beta1/common_webhook.go

@@ -28,3 +33,42 @@ const (
 		"ensures that the copying of the logs to the PV is completed without any " +
 		"complications."
 )
+
+// merge non-workflow section into workflow
+func mergeSectionIntoWorkflow(instance interface{}, workflowStepNum int) {


I would modify the interface of this function like this:

Suggested change

func mergeSectionIntoWorkflow(instance interface{}, workflowStepNum int) {

func mergeSectionIntoWorkflow(instance interface{}, instanceWorkflowSection {}interface) {

It would be a responsibility of the webhook to pass the correct values. Wdyt?:)

I looked into it and I don't understand why this would be needed 😄 Could you please explain your thought behind it a bit more?

Ok, so the idea for this function is to be generic because it is inside of the commonw_webhook.go . It should work for Tempest, Tobiko, HorizonTest and AnsibleTest CR. Yet you have a code which is specific to Tempest CR inside the function [1].

The idea is that inside the webhook you would call this function like this:

if len(spec.Workflow) > 0 { for _, workflowStepSpec := range spec.Workflow { mergeSectionIntoWorkflow(spec, workflowStepSpec) } }

This would allow you to avoid the need to cast the instance variable to TempestSpec before you can grab the workflow section.

[1] here

api/v1beta1/common_webhook.go

lpiwowar · 2024-10-23T12:33:48Z

controllers/common.go

+}
+
+func changeType(instance interface{}, workflowStepNum int) interface{} {
+	// TODO other types; else if typedInstance, ok := instance.(*v1beta1.HorizonTest);


Yes, I agree:)

lpiwowar · 2024-10-23T12:33:54Z

controllers/common.go

@@ -550,3 +550,38 @@ func GetCommonRbacRules(privileged bool) []rbacv1.PolicyRule {

 	return []rbacv1.PolicyRule{rbacPolicyRule}
 }
+
+// TODO make general for all resources


lpiwowar · 2024-10-23T12:37:55Z

api/v1beta1/common_webhook.go

+        tRun := spec.TempestRun
+        wtRun := &spec.Workflow[workflowStepNum].TempestRun


We can start the copying of the non-workflow values directly from Spec.. I know it was not done like so up until now for Tempest CR. The long term goal is to unify the behavior of the CRs so it would be nice to keep it consistent with the rest of them (like tobiko, ansibletest, ...).

Suggested change

tRun := spec.TempestRun

wtRun := &spec.Workflow[workflowStepNum].TempestRun

tRun := spec

wtRun := &spec.Workflow[workflowStepNum]

It might require some changes here:) [1].

Also, we should add similar behavior for the TempestconfRunSpec.

[1] here
[2] here

This patch adds reviewers who would be capable of adding /lgtm on test-operator PRs.

…igest to 30baa23

…igest to 4878b3f

…igest to 71a0e9d

When a workflow is set without ExtraConfigMap in ansible controller the pod won't be able to start because the pointer won't be pointing at nothing. Changed the condition to allow avoiding this issue. not tested, waiting for a test enviornment to work on this Jira: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OSPRH-11191

This patch fixes the issue when ExtraConfigmapsMounts is empty. Dereferencing a nil pointer leads to a panic. We now first check whether the pointer is nil and then move to dereferencing it.

For BGP setup there is the need to set the default gateway to the additional interface defined via the multus annotations. To allow this a user can configure `ipam.gateway` in the NAD. EnsureNetworksAnnotation() will override the pod network default route by reading the NAD. If `ipam.gateway` is defined and not "", it gets set on the networks annotation as the `default-route`. Jira: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OSPRH-8680 Depends-On: openstack-k8s-operators/lib-common#579 Signed-off-by: Martin Schuppert <mschuppert@redhat.com>

The Expected Failures List parameter will help with specifying set of tests whose failures we want to ignore. By adding test to this list, its failure will not have impact on the jobs pass/fail. It can help with not having to re-run long running jobs and save time and resources in specific cases, for example when dealing with flaky tests. Depends-On: openstack-k8s-operators/ci-framework#2513

The Ensure[Horizon|Tobiko]CloudsYAML function was failing when the CM containing the modified clouds.yaml already existed: Object openstack/horizontest-clouds-config is already owned by another HorizonTest controller horizontest-tests This patch does two things: - Ensures that we do not create the modified clouds.yaml when it already exists. - Removes the duplicate implementation of of the Ensure*CloudsYAML function and replaces it with EnsureCloudsConfigMapExists.

…igest to 6dc9fd0

Usually directories are ordered alphabetically when we access to them via CLI or UI. With this change the alphabetical order corresponds with the workflow order.

There was a race condition in the previous implementation of the workflows that was caused by the dependency of the workflow feature on a ConfigMap that served as counter. This commit simplifies the logic of the Reconcile loop in two ways: 1. Removes the dependency for an external workflow counter 2. Introduces NextAction function which decides what next action should be performed by the Reconcile loop based on the current state of the OpenShift cluster. The input of this function is the instance which is currently being processed and a workflowLength. Using these two arguments it then tells the Reconcile loop which actions it should perform: Wait, CreateFirstJob, CreateNextJob, EndTesting, Failure. This approach should simplify the reconcile logic and move the test-operator towards a unified Reconcile loop.

This patch enables the Tempest cleanup feature that cleans all resources created during the Tempest test execution. Depends-On: openstack-k8s-operators/ci-framework#2381

Currently, the merging of workflow section is done in controllers of related CRs. We want to move the merging logic into webhooks to make the process cleaner.

openshift-ci · 2024-12-03T09:59:57Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: kstrenkova
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please ask for approval from lpiwowar. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

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

softwarefactory-project-zuul · 2024-12-03T09:59:58Z

Merge Failed.

This change or one of its cross-repo dependencies was unable to be automatically merged with the current state of its repository. Please rebase the change and upload a new patchset.
Warning:
Error merging github.com/openstack-k8s-operators/test-operator for 168,acf536c9054f5be35f0179a5d34578f8977aa19c

openshift-merge-robot · 2024-12-03T09:59:59Z

PR needs rebase.

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-sigs/prow repository.

openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress label Aug 12, 2024

openshift-ci bot added the approved label Aug 12, 2024

lpiwowar added the do-not-merge/hold label Aug 15, 2024

lpiwowar assigned kstrenkova Sep 19, 2024

lpiwowar self-requested a review September 19, 2024 14:57

lpiwowar mentioned this pull request Sep 24, 2024

Embed common structs #200

Merged

lpiwowar reviewed Sep 24, 2024

View reviewed changes

kstrenkova force-pushed the merge-workflow-section-in-webhook branch from e880a74 to af17dde Compare September 30, 2024 19:24

Move merging of workflow section into webhook

6b1c12c

Currently, the merging of workflow section is done in controllers of related CRs. We want to move the merging logic into webhooks to make the process cleaner.

kstrenkova force-pushed the merge-workflow-section-in-webhook branch from af17dde to 6b1c12c Compare October 22, 2024 12:43

lpiwowar requested changes Oct 23, 2024

View reviewed changes

openshift-ci bot assigned lpiwowar Oct 23, 2024

lpiwowar and others added 16 commits December 3, 2024 04:56

Add test-reviewers to OWNERS

de15646

This patch adds reviewers who would be capable of adding /lgtm on test-operator PRs.

Update github.com/openstack-k8s-operators/lib-common/modules/common d…

0d89c49

…igest to 30baa23

Update k8s.io to v0.29.10

e8a52e8

Update github.com/openstack-k8s-operators/lib-common/modules/common d…

3f48370

…igest to 4878b3f

Update github.com/openstack-k8s-operators/lib-common/modules/common d…

dd52051

…igest to 71a0e9d

[OSPRH-11191] Remove dereference for nil pointer

d60e95b

This patch fixes the issue when ExtraConfigmapsMounts is empty. Dereferencing a nil pointer leads to a panic. We now first check whether the pointer is nil and then move to dereferencing it.

Update github.com/openstack-k8s-operators/lib-common/modules/common d…

addf1e4

…igest to 6dc9fd0

[Workflows] Order job name alphabetically

c9496c0

Usually directories are ordered alphabetically when we access to them via CLI or UI. With this change the alphabetical order corresponds with the workflow order.

[zuul] Enable Tempest cleanup

9a85436

This patch enables the Tempest cleanup feature that cleans all resources created during the Tempest test execution. Depends-On: openstack-k8s-operators/ci-framework#2381

Update k8s.io to v0.29.11

28be6b4

Move merging of workflow section into webhook

acf536c

Currently, the merging of workflow section is done in controllers of related CRs. We want to move the merging logic into webhooks to make the process cleaner.

openshift-ci bot removed the approved label Dec 3, 2024

openshift-merge-robot added the needs-rebase label Dec 3, 2024

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Move merging of workflow section into webhook #168

Move merging of workflow section into webhook #168

kstrenkova commented Aug 12, 2024

openshift-ci bot commented Aug 12, 2024

lpiwowar left a comment

lpiwowar Sep 24, 2024

lpiwowar Sep 24, 2024

kstrenkova commented Oct 22, 2024

lpiwowar left a comment

lpiwowar Oct 23, 2024

kstrenkova Oct 31, 2024

lpiwowar Nov 1, 2024

lpiwowar Oct 23, 2024

kstrenkova Oct 31, 2024

lpiwowar Oct 31, 2024

lpiwowar Oct 23, 2024

lpiwowar Oct 23, 2024

lpiwowar Oct 23, 2024

openshift-ci bot commented Dec 3, 2024

softwarefactory-project-zuul bot commented Dec 3, 2024

openshift-merge-robot commented Dec 3, 2024

	func changeType(wtRun testv1beta1.WorkflowTempestRunSpec) testv1beta1.TempestRunSpec {
	func changeType(instance interface{}) instance interface{} {

	if wtRunValue.IsZero() && !tRunValue.IsZero() {
	if wtRunValue.IsNil() {

	func mergeSectionIntoWorkflow(instance interface{}, workflowStepNum int) {
	func mergeSectionIntoWorkflow(instance interface{}, instanceWorkflowSection {}interface) {

		tRun := spec.TempestRun
		wtRun := &spec.Workflow[workflowStepNum].TempestRun

Move merging of workflow section into webhook #168

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Move merging of workflow section into webhook #168

Conversation

kstrenkova commented Aug 12, 2024

openshift-ci bot commented Aug 12, 2024

lpiwowar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kstrenkova commented Oct 22, 2024

lpiwowar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

openshift-ci bot commented Dec 3, 2024

softwarefactory-project-zuul bot commented Dec 3, 2024

openshift-merge-robot commented Dec 3, 2024