Bug 1699471 - test to ensure we never have more than 20 revisions
Summary: test to ensure we never have more than 20 revisions
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: OpenShift Container Platform
Classification: Red Hat
Component: kube-apiserver
Version: 4.1.0
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
high
medium
Target Milestone: ---
: 4.2.0
Assignee: Stefan Schimanski
QA Contact: Xingxing Xia
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2019-04-12 19:43 UTC by Luis Sanchez
Modified: 2019-10-16 06:28 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2019-10-16 06:28:05 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Product Errata RHBA-2019:2922 0 None None None 2019-10-16 06:28:22 UTC

Description Luis Sanchez 2019-04-12 19:43:34 UTC
Description of problem:

We should never have too many revisions. Add an e2e test to confirm revisions are being pruned.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:


Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.

Actual results:


Expected results:


Additional info:

Comment 1 David Eads 2019-04-13 13:40:50 UTC
We need this to prevent future hotloops like we saw in the kube-scheduler-operator

Comment 2 Mike Dame 2019-04-16 18:55:13 UTC
Do we want to set a limit to the prune controller too that keeps the maximum revisions at <=20 along with the test? Right now the the Succeeded/Failed revision limits could be set higher than that with no problem, with I think 0 or -1 actually being unlimited revisions. Is there more info on what this is for?

Comment 3 Luis Sanchez 2019-04-16 19:13:35 UTC
@Mike, I my mention of pruning was incorrect/irrelevant in my original description. This is more about a fresh cluster who, already has over 20 revisions right after install, strongly suggesting that there is some hotlooping going on.

Comment 4 Mike Dame 2019-04-16 19:38:00 UTC
Ah, that is interesting considering that by default we set the limit at 5/5 succeed/fail revisions. It seems to me like occasionally older revisions may get stuck in the "InProgress" state (eg, I have a cluster right now with 9 revisions, but somehow #4 never updated past InProgress). We don't count InProgress revisions toward any limit, so there might also be some work here to take those into consideration or refine our logic for determining success/fail.

Comment 8 errata-xmlrpc 2019-10-16 06:28:05 UTC
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2019:2922


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.