Repository navigation
Conversation
|
@blueorangutan package |
|
@Damans227 a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with no SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress. |
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #14424 +/- ##
=============================================
- Coverage 20.39% 3.88% -16.52%
=============================================
Files 6481 493 -5988
Lines 588040 42571 -545469
Branches 72021 8069 -63952
=============================================
- Hits 119957 1653 -118304
+ Misses 455052 40687 -414365
+ Partials 13031 231 -12800
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
|
Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ el10 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 19586 |
|
Could the legacy fallback be changed so retrying deletion cannot remove another cluster's unmarked rule? At The fix needs to avoid treating 'no tagged rules found' as proof that a matching unmarked rule belongs to A. A regression test can cover this by calling the real cleanup method twice, updating the DAO result after the first removal, and checking that B's rule is never revoked on the second call. Source at this head: fallback, deletion order, startup retry. |
|
@Dogface2k fixed in 08df402. the cluster now saves a note that its rule is gone before removing it, so a retry wont fall back to another cluster's unmarked rule. added a test that runs the cleanup twice and checks the other cluster's rule is never removed. |
Fixes #14409
Deleting a CKS cluster on a VPC tier removed every allow rule for ports 6443 and 22 in the tier's ACL list, so other clusters using the same list lost their rules. The rules CKS added had nothing tying them to a cluster. Now each rule CKS adds gets the cluster's id in its reason, and delete only removes the rules with that id. For clusters made before this change, whose rules have no reason, delete removes one rule per port instead of all of them.
Test:
On a 2 host KVM lab, make a VPC with a custom ACL list
cks-acland two tiers on it,tier-aandtier-b. Create one CKS cluster on each tier, then delete the one ontier-aand list the rules oncks-acl.Before: deleting the
tier-acluster also removes thetier-bcluster's 22 and 6443 rules. Rules before the delete:After the delete only 5 and 6 are left, and cluster B (
414c6f45...) has no 22 or 6443 rule.After: only the deleted cluster's rules go. Rules before the delete:
After the delete:
Log from the delete job:
Unit tests also cover three 6443 rules in one list (cluster A, cluster B, and one older rule with no reason): deleting A removes only A's rule.