馃悰 Adding metrics container port in tilt-prepare only if it's missing #9308
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
cncf-cla: yes
k8s-ci-robot
added
do-not-merge/needs-area
|
Hi @prometherion. 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 Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the 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. |
| @@ -848,6 +851,16 @@ func prepareWorkload(name, prefix, binaryName, containerName string, objs []unst | |||
| }) | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| func containerHasMetricsPort(ports []corev1.ContainerPort) bool { | |||
| for _, port := range ports { | |||
| if port.ContainerPort == 8080 && port.Name == "metrics" && port.Protocol == corev1.ProtocolTCP { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| if port.ContainerPort == 8080 && port.Name == "metrics" && port.Protocol == corev1.ProtocolTCP { | |
| if port.Name == "metrics" { |
With the current check we would still run into errors right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Or would we want to update existing metrics ports to 8080? (so it makes sense together with l.831?)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Btw I was planning to get rid of this entire section with #9289
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If we would get rid of it with #9289 I'm fine with a pragmatic stopgap solution to unblock you in the meantime
There was a problem hiding this comment.
TBH I would avoid at all adding the metrics port, since if the addon is not exposing it there's nothing to scrape from.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So maybe for now let's go with if port.Name == "metrics" {?
This should cover your case and also some others where folks would still get errors if they have a metrics containerPort with a different port
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason why we currently have this logic is because per default we don't want to expose an insecure metrics port, but for development we would like to be able to work with metrics
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So maybe for now let's go with
if port.Name == "metrics" {?
Thanks, force pushed with be68373
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah ups, the port has to be unique not the name :) My bad
|
/ok-to-test |
k8s-ci-robot
added
ok-to-test
prometherion
force-pushed
the
issues/9306
branch
from
58ea650
to
be68373
Compare
|
/lgtm |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
|
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: 173ee1eb0c91113c0fa8ada22987fc5e11901215
|
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: sbueringer 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 |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
approved
What this PR does / why we need it:
tilt-prepareshould add themetricsport to add-on workload containers only if it's missing to prevent API validation errors since ports must be unique.Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #9306