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.

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

Take static networking into account when contructing machineDeployment #606

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 31, 2019

Conversation

kron4eg
Copy link
Member

@kron4eg kron4eg commented Jul 29, 2019

What this PR does / why we need it:
We had Network config structures already, but never used them, so this PR fixes this unfortunate incident.

Configure static network

@kron4eg kron4eg requested a review from xmudrii July 29, 2019 15:49
@kubermatic-bot kubermatic-bot added release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. dco-signoff: yes Denotes that all commits in the pull request have the valid DCO signoff message. size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Jul 29, 2019
@@ -75,15 +67,14 @@ func createMachineDeployment(cluster *kubeoneapi.KubeOneCluster, workerset kubeo
return nil, errors.Wrap(err, "failed to generate machineSpec")
}

config := providerSpec{
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

we don't need special providerSpec struct, we already have everything in put API, we this change introduce using existing structs.

@@ -96,6 +87,12 @@ func createMachineDeployment(cluster *kubeoneapi.KubeOneCluster, workerset kubeo
"workerset": workerset.Name,
}

if workerset.Config.Network != nil {
// we have static network config
Copy link
Member Author

@kron4eg kron4eg Jul 29, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

static network config is kinda special case and we need to flip those maxSurge and maxUnavailable

@kubermatic-bot kubermatic-bot 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 Jul 30, 2019
@kron4eg
Copy link
Member Author

kron4eg commented Jul 31, 2019

/retest

Copy link
Member

@xmudrii xmudrii left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/approve

@kubermatic-bot kubermatic-bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jul 31, 2019
@kubermatic-bot
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: 66811f22341864fc8b6236f4817492ebb921a6e7

@kubermatic-bot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: xmudrii

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

@kubermatic-bot kubermatic-bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Jul 31, 2019
@kubermatic-bot kubermatic-bot merged commit feca96c into master Jul 31, 2019
@kubermatic-bot kubermatic-bot deleted the static_net branch July 31, 2019 08:26
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. dco-signoff: yes Denotes that all commits in the pull request have the valid DCO signoff message. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants