mirror of
https://github.com/cozystack/cozystack.git
synced 2026-11-08 21:14:56 +09:00
Aleksei Sviridkin
905249fb39
<!-- Thank you for making a contribution! Here are some tips for you: - Use Conventional Commits for the PR title: `type(scope): description` - Types: feat, fix, docs, style, refactor, perf, test, build, ci, chore - Scopes are not an exhaustive list — pick the most specific scope for the change and extend the list when a genuinely new area appears. Examples: - System components: dashboard, platform, operator, cilium, kube-ovn, linstor, fluxcd, cluster-api - Managed apps: postgres, mariadb, redis, kafka, clickhouse, virtual-machine, kubernetes - Development and maintenance: api, hack, tests, ci, docs, maintenance - Breaking changes: append `!` after type/scope (`feat(api)!: ...`) or add a `BREAKING CHANGE:` footer - If it's a work in progress, consider creating this PR as a draft. - Don't hesistate to ask for opinion and review in the community chats, even if it's still a draft. - Add the label `backport` if it's a bugfix that needs to be backported to a previous version. --> ## What this PR does `hack/e2e-capture-dataplane.sh` runs after an e2e failure to snapshot the host-to-pod data plane. Every `kubectl` read in it was unbounded, so a read against a wedged apiserver hung until the caller's own backstop killed the script, and then no capture file was written at all. The run that most needs the diagnostic is the run least likely to produce one. Each read now carries its own bound, 20s for a single read and 28s for a list, well inside the 300s the callers allow. Bounding the reads creates the second problem, which is most of this diff. A bounded read that gives up returns empty, and empty was already how the script recognised "there is nothing here". Five places turned a read that never answered into a fact about the cluster: no affected pods, no ovn-central, no LoadBalancer Service, no cilium-agent on a node, and a LoadBalancer recorded as reachable. Two of the five only became reachable because of the bounds. Before them the script died instead of writing the file, so a lookup that never answered could not be recorded as a pod that is not there. Each of those claims now has a counterpart chosen by the status of the read that produced it, and the counterpart says what is left unknown rather than what the read did. The last one is the subtlest, because nothing about it looks like a claim of absence: the probe resolves a cni-server pod before probing, and a lookup that never answered produced no probe outcome at all, which the decision helper read as "nothing failed" and the artifact stamped as reachable. That is a verdict about an address the script never touched. The probe now emits an explicit unknown, and a set of outcomes that is entirely unknown stays unknown. Only a wholly unknown set: one unrun probe beside real failures leaves the failures standing and still captures, because they are the evidence the capture exists to characterise. Every note ships beside the capture it explains, not only in the job log, because the reader who has the uploaded report and not the run is exactly the reader who cannot otherwise tell a capture that found nothing from one that never ran. Both sibling collectors already hold that contract. The middle commit is a separate and measurable thing. Each per-node pod lookup was issued up to three times per node; it is asked once now and memoised, with only answers and cutoffs cached, since an instant failure costs nothing to re-ask and caching it would make one transient permanent for the whole run. On an 8-pod, 8-node stub that is 264 kubectl calls down to 229 and 59 per-node lookups down to 24, with byte-identical output. Deliberately left, and worth naming so nobody reads this as the whole class. The two EndpointSlice reads still discard stderr and report neither outcome. The "reachable, skipped" wording still covers every path that reaches it having run zero probes, among them an unresolved probe node, a `_lbport` of 0, a cni-server image carrying none of `nc`, `curl` or `wget`, and a failure of the probe `exec` itself rather than of the lookup before it; that leftover is tracked in #3658. And the three call sites still disagree about what a partial answer means: `host_http_probe` discards a name that arrived with a non-zero status, while `capture_node` and `capture_lb_node` use a non-empty name regardless of it. All of these are verbatim at the merge base and this diff does not change their behaviour. Covered by 39 cases in `hack/capture-dataplane.bats`, each branch pinned by a stub that answers one read and fails another, and each with a positive anchor so a stub that stops short of the branch fails rather than passing quietly. relates to #3642 ### Screenshots <!-- REQUIRED for UI changes: attach screenshots or screen recordings demonstrating the visual impact of your changes. PRs with UI changes without screenshots will not be merged. --> ### Downstream repositories <!-- Cozystack is upstream for repositories that are NOT kept in sync with it automatically, and nothing in CI compares the two sides, so a change here can break them silently. Which change forces what, and which file to touch, is the trigger map in docs/agents/contributing.md under "Downstream Repositories". Walk it before you tick anything. IF YOU ARE AN AI AGENT OR AN LLM, THIS IS PART OF THE TASK, NOT A FORM TO FILL IN: 1. Walk the trigger map against the actual diff of this PR, file by file. Do not decide from the PR title or from your memory of what you changed. 2. For every repository you tick, open the follow-up PR there and link it on the same line. A ticked box with no link claims work that does not exist, which is worse than an empty box. Search that repository for an open PR or issue covering it first, and link that instead of filing a duplicate. 3. When the follow-up is out of scope, or needs a decision that is not yours to make, open an issue in that repository instead, link that, and say so in the PR body. Do not push a speculative PR into another repository just to fill a line here. 4. Do not tick "No downstream repository is affected" to make the checklist go away. If you are unsure, leave every box empty and say so in the PR body, so a human decides. --> - [x] No downstream repository is affected by this change - [ ] [cozystack/website](https://github.com/cozystack/website) - follow-up: - [ ] [cozystack/terraform-provider-cozystack](https://github.com/cozystack/terraform-provider-cozystack) - follow-up: - [ ] [cozystack/ansible-cozystack](https://github.com/cozystack/ansible-cozystack) - follow-up: - [ ] [cozystack/ccp](https://github.com/cozystack/ccp) - follow-up: - [ ] [cozystack/talm](https://github.com/cozystack/talm) - follow-up: - [ ] [cozystack/cozyhr](https://github.com/cozystack/cozyhr) - follow-up: - [ ] [cozystack/cozy-proxy](https://github.com/cozystack/cozy-proxy) - follow-up: - [ ] [cozystack/cozystack-telemetry-server](https://github.com/cozystack/cozystack-telemetry-server) - follow-up: - [ ] [cozystack/external-apps-example](https://github.com/cozystack/external-apps-example) - follow-up: - [ ] [cozystack/examples](https://github.com/cozystack/examples) - follow-up: ### Release note <!-- Write a release note: - Explain what has changed internally and for users. - Start with the same `type(scope):` prefix as in the PR title - Follow the guidelines at https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/guide/release-notes.md. --> ```release-note fix(tests): bound every kubectl read in the e2e data-plane capture so a hung read no longer costs the whole capture, and stop the collector reporting an unanswered read as an absent pod, service or reachable address ```