Skip to content

refact/lb/sg: isolate security group deletion fragments from EnsureLoadBalancerDeleted#1159

Merged
k8s-ci-robot merged 1 commit into
kubernetes:masterfrom
mtulio:refact-sg-deletion
Jun 27, 2025
Merged

refact/lb/sg: isolate security group deletion fragments from EnsureLoadBalancerDeleted#1159
k8s-ci-robot merged 1 commit into
kubernetes:masterfrom
mtulio:refact-sg-deletion

Conversation

@mtulio
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@mtulio mtulio commented Jun 13, 2025

What type of PR is this?

/kind cleanup

What this PR does / why we need it:

Isolating security group deletion fragments from EnsureLoadBalancerDeleted to buildSecurityGroupsToDelete and deleteSecurityGroupsWithBackoff, so the evaluation criteria and backoff deletion can be reused in future implementations, i.e. NLB with Security Groups.

This change contributes to decrease the change scope of #1158.

Only the backoff logic has been changed to add exponencial check, preventing

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

NONE

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. kind/cleanup Categorizes issue or PR as related to cleaning up code, process, or technical debt. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. labels Jun 13, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the needs-triage Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `triage/foo` label and requires one. label Jun 13, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

k8s-ci-robot commented Jun 13, 2025

Hi @mtulio. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes 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.

Details

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.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Jun 13, 2025
@mtulio
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

mtulio commented Jun 13, 2025

PTAL? This change is making the code more generic to be used in future implementations, such as #1158
/assign @kmala @elmiko

@mtulio mtulio mentioned this pull request Jun 13, 2025
Merged
8 tasks
mtulio
mtulio commented Jun 13, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment thread pkg/providers/v1/aws.go Outdated
@elmiko
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

elmiko commented Jun 13, 2025

probably won't get to this today, but i will review early next week.

@mtulio
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

mtulio commented Jun 13, 2025 •
edited
Loading

I am able to run the tests locally:

$ make test
....
    --- PASS: TestGetNodeTopology/Should_return_unhandled_errors (0.00s)
PASS
ok  	k8s.io/cloud-provider-aws/pkg/resourcemanagers	1.025s
?   	k8s.io/cloud-provider-aws/pkg/services	[no test files]


$ ./e2e.test --ginkgo.v
....
-----------------------------

Summarizing 1 Failure:
  [FAIL] [cloud-provider-aws-e2e] ecr [It] should start pod using public ecr image
  /home/mtulio/go/pkg/mod/k8s.io/kubernetes@v1.26.0/test/e2e/framework/pod/pod_client.go:107

Ran 6 of 6 Specs in 710.314 seconds
FAIL! -- 5 Passed | 1 Failed | 0 Pending | 0 Skipped
--- FAIL: TestE2E (710.31s)
    suite_test.go:46: ReportDir: 
FAIL

Looks like the failed one would be related with my local setup, needs label ok-to-test to validate it in controlled environment.

@yue9944882
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

yue9944882 commented Jun 13, 2025

/ok-to-test

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. and removed needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Jun 13, 2025
kmala
kmala reviewed Jun 14, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment thread pkg/providers/v1/aws.go Outdated
@mtulio mtulio force-pushed the refact-sg-deletion branch from 5ac5356 to 2785cbb Compare June 16, 2025 15:56
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jun 16, 2025
@mtulio mtulio marked this pull request as draft June 16, 2025 15:58
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Jun 16, 2025
@mtulio mtulio marked this pull request as ready for review June 16, 2025 16:04
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Jun 16, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot requested a review from hakman June 16, 2025 16:05
@mtulio mtulio force-pushed the refact-sg-deletion branch from 2785cbb to 55d583b Compare June 16, 2025 16:05
@mtulio
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

mtulio commented Jun 16, 2025

I am observing a permanent failure on CI when launching the cluster trying to use an image that is no longer available:
https://prow.k8s.io/view/gs/kubernetes-ci-logs/pr-logs/pull/cloud-provider-aws/1159/pull-cloud-provider-aws-e2e/1934643492319924224#1:build-log.txt%3A752

 specified image "099720109477/ubuntu/images/hvm-ssd-gp3/ubuntu-noble-24.04-amd64-server-20250502.1" is invalid: could not find Image for "099720109477/ubuntu/images/hvm-ssd-gp3/ubuntu-noble-24.04-amd64-server-20250502.1"

This is also happening in other PRs I am watching.

Is this comes from the test framework or is it possible to use a valid image in CCM repo?

@mtulio
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

mtulio commented Jun 17, 2025

/test pull-cloud-provider-aws-e2e

@mtulio
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

mtulio commented Jun 17, 2025

An issue has been opened to track the CI problem: #1167

@mtulio
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

mtulio commented Jun 18, 2025

Hi @yue9944882 @kmala , feedback addressed. Would you mind taking a look? I am still waiting/looking for CI to fix e2e job (#1167), but this is ready for review.

@mtulio
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

mtulio commented Jun 18, 2025

/test pull-cloud-provider-aws-e2e

@mtulio
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

mtulio commented Jun 19, 2025

Looks like e2e is now working, and tests are green awaiting for feedback! Thanks!

kmala
kmala reviewed Jun 19, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment thread pkg/providers/v1/aws.go
@mtulio mtulio force-pushed the refact-sg-deletion branch from 55d583b to 82f61bc Compare June 20, 2025 15:13
@mtulio
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

mtulio commented Jun 23, 2025

Hey @kmala , feedback addressed. PTAL? Thanks!

@kmala
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

kmala commented Jun 23, 2025

/triage accepted
/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added triage/accepted Indicates an issue or PR is ready to be actively worked on. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. and removed needs-triage Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `triage/foo` label and requires one. labels Jun 23, 2025
elmiko
elmiko reviewed Jun 24, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@elmiko elmiko left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

this makes sense to me, ++ on the code docs too.

/lgtm

@kmala
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

kmala commented Jun 24, 2025

/approve

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

k8s-ci-robot commented Jun 24, 2025

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: kmala

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

The pull request process is described here

Details Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

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

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. labels Jun 24, 2025
@mtulio
refact/lb/sg: isolate sg deletion fragments to be reused
e454240 
Isolating security group deletion fragments from EnsureLoadBalancerDeleted
to buildSecurityGroupsToDelete and deleteSecurityGroupsWithBackoff, so
the envaluation criteria and backof deletion can be reused in future
implementations, i.e. NLB with Security Groups.
@mtulio mtulio force-pushed the refact-sg-deletion branch from 82f61bc to e454240 Compare June 27, 2025 04:14
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. labels Jun 27, 2025
@mtulio
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

mtulio commented Jun 27, 2025

Hey @kmala @elmiko , thanks a lot for reviewing and approving this PR. Can I have lgtm labels again? it was lost after rebase. thanks!

@kmala
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

kmala commented Jun 27, 2025

/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jun 27, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit cd72edc into kubernetes:master Jun 27, 2025
11 checks passed
@mtulio mtulio deleted the refact-sg-deletion branch July 4, 2025 14:14
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@kmala kmala kmala left review comments

@kishorj kishorj Awaiting requested review from kishorj

@nckturner nckturner Awaiting requested review from nckturner

@hakman hakman Awaiting requested review from hakman

+2 more reviewers

@elmiko elmiko elmiko left review comments

@yue9944882 yue9944882 yue9944882 left review comments

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

@elmiko elmiko

@kmala kmala

Labels

approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. kind/cleanup Categorizes issue or PR as related to cleaning up code, process, or technical debt. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. triage/accepted Indicates an issue or PR is ready to be actively worked on.

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@mtulio @k8s-ci-robot @elmiko @yue9944882 @kmala