Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

UPSTREAM: 51042: Allow passing request-timeout from NewRequest all the way down #13701

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Feb 9, 2018
Merged

UPSTREAM: 51042: Allow passing request-timeout from NewRequest all the way down #13701

merged 2 commits into from Feb 9, 2018

Conversation

soltysh
Copy link
Member

@soltysh soltysh commented Apr 10, 2017

This was split from #13458.

@smarterclayton let's continue the discussion here.

soltysh
soltysh commented Apr 10, 2017
View reviewed changes
vendor/k8s.io/kubernetes/pkg/client/restclient/client.go Outdated
@@ -222,9 +222,11 @@ func (c *RESTClient) Verb(verb string) *Request {
backoff := c.createBackoffMgr()

if c.Client == nil {
return NewRequest(nil, verb, c.base, c.versionedAPIPath, c.contentConfig, c.serializers, backoff, c.Throttle)
return NewRequest(nil, verb, c.base, c.versionedAPIPath, c.contentConfig,
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Timeout should be a helper on Request, vs adding something to the constructor. There are lots of reasons to set timeouts per request type.

@smarterclayton Timeout is already a separate method on Request. I was thinking rather that we'll copy the value passed through client, and if someone will actually use Timeout that will override that this. What I had in mind is that I wanted to have a global solution that will just pass the timeout. It's reasonable to use Timeout method here instead of modifying the constructor, though.

@soltysh soltysh mentioned this pull request Apr 10, 2017
Merged
@openshift-bot openshift-bot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Apr 30, 2017
@openshift-bot openshift-bot added needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. and removed needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. labels May 24, 2017
@smarterclayton
Copy link
Contributor

smarterclayton commented May 31, 2017 via email

@openshift-bot openshift-bot added needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. and removed needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. labels Jun 9, 2017
@openshift-bot openshift-bot added needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. and removed needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. labels Jun 22, 2017
@openshift-bot openshift-bot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jul 1, 2017
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Origin Action Required: Pull request cannot be automatically merged, please rebase your branch from latest HEAD and push again

@openshift-bot openshift-bot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jul 1, 2017
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot added the size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. label Jul 24, 2017
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot added approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. and removed approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. labels Jul 28, 2017
@deads2k
Copy link
Contributor

deads2k commented Jul 31, 2017

/assign smarterclayton
/unassign

@soltysh soltysh mentioned this pull request Aug 21, 2017
Merged
@soltysh
Copy link
Member Author

soltysh commented Aug 23, 2017

The uptream part is kubernetes/kubernetes#51042

@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot added the vendor-update Touching vendor dir or related files label Oct 14, 2017
deads2k
deads2k reviewed Oct 23, 2017
View reviewed changes
test/integration/etcd_storage_path_test.go
@@ -992,7 +992,7 @@ func (c *allClient) verb(verb string, gvk unversioned.GroupVersionKind) (*restcl
if err != nil {
return nil, err
}
return restclient.NewRequest(c.client, verb, baseURL, versionedAPIPath, contentConfig, *serializers, c.backoff, c.config.RateLimiter), nil
return restclient.NewRequest(c.client, verb, baseURL, versionedAPIPath, contentConfig, *serializers, c.backoff, c.config.RateLimiter, 0), nil
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry that I'm just now getting to the point of chasing this down, but why not just call restclient.NewRequest().Timeout(0)?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Here, it doesn't matter. What I care is that the --request-timeout flag is being properly propagated to the request.

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Feb 6, 2018
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Feb 6, 2018
@soltysh soltysh changed the title UPSTREAM: pass request-timeout all the way down to actual request UPSTREAM: 51042: Allow passing request-timeout from NewRequest all the way down Feb 6, 2018
@soltysh
Copy link
Member Author

soltysh commented Feb 6, 2018

I'll merge this once I get upstream approval.

vdemeester pushed a commit to vdemeester/kubernetes that referenced this pull request Feb 7, 2018
Merge pull request kubernetes#51042 from soltysh/request_timeout
1f62514 
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 59276, 51042, 58973, 59377, 59472). If you want to cherry-pick this change to another branch, please follow the instructions <a href="https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/cherry-picks.md">here</a>.

Allow passing request-timeout from NewRequest all the way down

**What this PR does / why we need it**:
Currently if you pass `--request-timeout` it's not passed all the way down to the actual request object. There's a separate field on the `Request` object that allows setting that timeout, but it's not taken from that flag. 

@smarterclayton @deads2k ptal, this is coming from openshift/origin#13701
k8s-publishing-bot added a commit to kubernetes/client-go that referenced this pull request Feb 7, 2018
@k8s-publishing-bot
Merge pull request #51042 from soltysh/request_timeout
33bd23f 
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 59276, 51042, 58973, 59377, 59472). If you want to cherry-pick this change to another branch, please follow the instructions <a href="https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/cherry-picks.md">here</a>.

Allow passing request-timeout from NewRequest all the way down

**What this PR does / why we need it**:
Currently if you pass `--request-timeout` it's not passed all the way down to the actual request object. There's a separate field on the `Request` object that allows setting that timeout, but it's not taken from that flag.

@smarterclayton @deads2k ptal, this is coming from openshift/origin#13701

Kubernetes-commit: 1f6251444b7dad7f5d924acbfb366541f2a6fb99
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Feb 8, 2018
@soltysh
Copy link
Member Author

soltysh commented Feb 8, 2018

This was already merged upstream so adding necessary labels.

@soltysh soltysh added approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. labels Feb 8, 2018
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

Approval requirements bypassed by manually added approval.

This pull-request has been approved by: soltysh

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

Needs approval from an approver in each of these OWNERS Files:

You can indicate your approval by writing /approve in a comment
You can cancel your approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@soltysh
Copy link
Member Author

soltysh commented Feb 8, 2018

/retest

@openshift-merge-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 18503, 18399, 13701, 18513, 18515).

@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit 0fd7db9 into openshift:master Feb 9, 2018
@soltysh soltysh deleted the request_timeout branch February 13, 2018 12:05
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@deads2k deads2k deads2k left review comments

Assignees

@smarterclayton smarterclayton

@eparis eparis

Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. vendor-update Touching vendor dir or related files
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
7 participants
@soltysh @smarterclayton @openshift-bot @deads2k @openshift-ci-robot @openshift-merge-robot @eparis