jiebi/CodeConvo huggingface dataset:
Code change:
Created limit range object with this parameters then tried to create this pod got message: Error from server (Invalid): error when creating "pod-to-be-": Pod "nginx-to-be-removed-4" is invalid: spec.containers[0].resources.requests: Invalid value: "700m": must be less than or equal to cpu limit Pod should be created with Requests & Limits of cpu equal to 700m (since it is in range of min/max cpu limitrange object) create limitrange object and pod as in description No response <details</details<detailson premise/AKS </details<details</details<details</details<details</details<details</details
This issue is currently awaiting triage. If a SIG or subproject determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the label and provide further guidance. The label can be by org members by writing in a comment. <detailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details
/sig node
You have a default CPU limit of 10m, and no explicit CPU limit on the container, but a request larger than the limit. The request must always be less than or equal to the limit. Your pod needs to also set a higher limit, or the limit range needs to not set a default limit.
/remove-kind bug /kind support
/cc
but this is not obvious behavior since there is min & max set in limit range. This is limits (not min/max) that should be overwritten by pod. limits should be set to requests in this case imho
limit range limits what the user can set, it doesn't perform any mutations other than the defaulting and doesn't claim to. Min/max enforce that pods cannot set higher / lower. The default ensures that if the pod doesn't set a limit it will have one. personally I would remove the default limit, especially at 10m, this will aggressively limit pods. it would be, if the pod set a limit that would be a substantial breaking change, I don't think we could do that short of a v2 API and I'm not sure it would be correct behavior even then. we could make it opt-in, but then, why not just set them to match on the pod to begin with?

Related discussion:
text: if exists { // For GPUs, not only requests can't exceed limits, they also can't be lower, i.e. must be equal. if quantity.Cmp(limitQuantity) != 0 && !v1helper.IsOvercommitAllowed(resourceName) { <del> allErrs = append(allErrs, field.Invalid(reqPath, quantity.String(), fmt.Sprintf("must be equal to %s limit", resourceName))) </del> <ins> allErrs = append(allErrs, field.Invalid(reqPath, quantity.String(), fmt.Sprintf("must be equal to %s limit of %s", resourceName, limitQuantity.String()))) </ins> } else if quantity.Cmp(limitQuantity) > 0 { <del> allErrs = append(allErrs, field.Invalid(reqPath, quantity.String(), fmt.Sprintf("must be less than or equal to %s limit", resourceName))) </del> <ins> allErrs = append(allErrs, field.Invalid(reqPath, quantity.String(), fmt.Sprintf("must be less than or equal to %s limit of %s", resourceName, limitQuantity.String()))) </ins> } } }
Code change:
Created limit range object with this parameters then tried to create this pod got message: Error from server (Invalid): error when creating "pod-to-be-": Pod "nginx-to-be-removed-4" is invalid: spec.containers[0].resources.requests: Invalid value: "700m": must be less than or equal to cpu limit Pod should be created with Requests & Limits of cpu equal to 700m (since it is in range of min/max cpu limitrange object) create limitrange object and pod as in description No response <details</details<detailson premise/AKS </details<details</details<details</details<details</details<details</details
This issue is currently awaiting triage. If a SIG or subproject determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the label and provide further guidance. The label can be by org members by writing in a comment. <detailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details
/sig node
You have a default CPU limit of 10m, and no explicit CPU limit on the container, but a request larger than the limit. The request must always be less than or equal to the limit. Your pod needs to also set a higher limit, or the limit range needs to not set a default limit.
/remove-kind bug /kind support
/cc
but this is not obvious behavior since there is min & max set in limit range. This is limits (not min/max) that should be overwritten by pod. limits should be set to requests in this case imho
limit range limits what the user can set, it doesn't perform any mutations other than the defaulting and doesn't claim to. Min/max enforce that pods cannot set higher / lower. The default ensures that if the pod doesn't set a limit it will have one. personally I would remove the default limit, especially at 10m, this will aggressively limit pods. it would be, if the pod set a limit that would be a substantial breaking change, I don't think we could do that short of a v2 API and I'm not sure it would be correct behavior even then. we could make it opt-in, but then, why not just set them to match on the pod to begin with?

Related discussion:
text: package validation import ( <ins> "strings" </ins> "testing" <del> "k8s.io/api/core/v1" </del> <ins> v1 "k8s.io/api/core/v1" </ins> "k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/api/resource" metav1 "k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/apis/meta/v1" "k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/util/sets"
Code change:
Created limit range object with this parameters then tried to create this pod got message: Error from server (Invalid): error when creating "pod-to-be-": Pod "nginx-to-be-removed-4" is invalid: spec.containers[0].resources.requests: Invalid value: "700m": must be less than or equal to cpu limit Pod should be created with Requests & Limits of cpu equal to 700m (since it is in range of min/max cpu limitrange object) create limitrange object and pod as in description No response <details</details<detailson premise/AKS </details<details</details<details</details<details</details<details</details
This issue is currently awaiting triage. If a SIG or subproject determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the label and provide further guidance. The label can be by org members by writing in a comment. <detailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details
/sig node
You have a default CPU limit of 10m, and no explicit CPU limit on the container, but a request larger than the limit. The request must always be less than or equal to the limit. Your pod needs to also set a higher limit, or the limit range needs to not set a default limit.
/remove-kind bug /kind support
/cc
but this is not obvious behavior since there is min & max set in limit range. This is limits (not min/max) that should be overwritten by pod. limits should be set to requests in this case imho
limit range limits what the user can set, it doesn't perform any mutations other than the defaulting and doesn't claim to. Min/max enforce that pods cannot set higher / lower. The default ensures that if the pod doesn't set a limit it will have one. personally I would remove the default limit, especially at 10m, this will aggressively limit pods. it would be, if the pod set a limit that would be a substantial breaking change, I don't think we could do that short of a v2 API and I'm not sure it would be correct behavior even then. we could make it opt-in, but then, why not just set them to match on the pod to begin with?

Related discussion:
text: } errorCase := []struct { <del> name         string requirements v1.ResourceRequirements </del> <ins> name                  string requirements          v1.ResourceRequirements skipLimitValueCheck   bool skipRequestValueCheck bool </ins> }{ { name: "Resources with Requests Larger Than Limits",
Code change:
Created limit range object with this parameters then tried to create this pod got message: Error from server (Invalid): error when creating "pod-to-be-": Pod "nginx-to-be-removed-4" is invalid: spec.containers[0].resources.requests: Invalid value: "700m": must be less than or equal to cpu limit Pod should be created with Requests & Limits of cpu equal to 700m (since it is in range of min/max cpu limitrange object) create limitrange object and pod as in description No response <details</details<detailson premise/AKS </details<details</details<details</details<details</details<details</details
This issue is currently awaiting triage. If a SIG or subproject determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the label and provide further guidance. The label can be by org members by writing in a comment. <detailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details
/sig node
You have a default CPU limit of 10m, and no explicit CPU limit on the container, but a request larger than the limit. The request must always be less than or equal to the limit. Your pod needs to also set a higher limit, or the limit range needs to not set a default limit.
/remove-kind bug /kind support
/cc
but this is not obvious behavior since there is min & max set in limit range. This is limits (not min/max) that should be overwritten by pod. limits should be set to requests in this case imho
limit range limits what the user can set, it doesn't perform any mutations other than the defaulting and doesn't claim to. Min/max enforce that pods cannot set higher / lower. The default ensures that if the pod doesn't set a limit it will have one. personally I would remove the default limit, especially at 10m, this will aggressively limit pods. it would be, if the pod set a limit that would be a substantial breaking change, I don't think we could do that short of a v2 API and I'm not sure it would be correct behavior even then. we could make it opt-in, but then, why not just set them to match on the pod to begin with?

Related discussion:
text: v1.ResourceName("my.org"): resource.MustParse("10m"), }, }, <ins> skipRequestValueCheck: true, </ins> }, { name: "Invalid Resources with Limits",
Code change:
As per, , wire up metrics/slis for ccm
/assign /sig instrumentation /sig cloud-provider
GitHub didn't allow me to assign the following users: Richabanker. Note that only , repo collaborators and people who have commented on this issue/PR can be assigned. Additionally, issues/PRs can only have 10 assignees at the same time. For more information please see <detailsIn response to : /assign /sig instrumentation /sig cloud-provider Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details
/assign
/triage accepted
/remove-triage accepted
/triage accepted

Related discussion:
text: "k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/util/uuid" "k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/util/wait" "k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/server/healthz" <ins> utilfeature "k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/util/feature" </ins> cacheddiscovery "k8s.io/client-go/discovery/cached" "k8s.io/client-go/informers" v1core "k8s.io/client-go/kubernetes/typed/core/v1"
Code change:
As per, , wire up metrics/slis for ccm
/assign /sig instrumentation /sig cloud-provider
GitHub didn't allow me to assign the following users: Richabanker. Note that only , repo collaborators and people who have commented on this issue/PR can be assigned. Additionally, issues/PRs can only have 10 assignees at the same time. For more information please see <detailsIn response to : /assign /sig instrumentation /sig cloud-provider Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details
/assign
/triage accepted
/remove-triage accepted
/triage accepted

Related discussion:
text: cliflag "k8s.io/component-base/cli/flag" "k8s.io/component-base/cli/globalflag" "k8s.io/component-base/configz" <ins> "k8s.io/component-base/metrics/features" </ins> controllersmetrics "k8s.io/component-base/metrics/prometheus/controllers" <ins> "k8s.io/component-base/metrics/prometheus/slis" </ins> "k8s.io/component-base/term" "k8s.io/component-base/version" "k8s.io/component-base/version/verflag"
Code change:
As per, , wire up metrics/slis for ccm
/assign /sig instrumentation /sig cloud-provider
GitHub didn't allow me to assign the following users: Richabanker. Note that only , repo collaborators and people who have commented on this issue/PR can be assigned. Additionally, issues/PRs can only have 10 assignees at the same time. For more information please see <detailsIn response to : /assign /sig instrumentation /sig cloud-provider Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details
/assign
/triage accepted
/remove-triage accepted
/triage accepted

Related discussion:
text: "k8s.io/klog/v2" ) <ins> func init() { utilruntime.Must(features.AddFeatureGates(utilfeature.DefaultMutableFeatureGate)) } </ins> const ( // ControllerStartJitter is the jitter value used when starting controller managers. ControllerStartJitter = 1.0
Code change:
As per, , wire up metrics/slis for ccm
/assign /sig instrumentation /sig cloud-provider
GitHub didn't allow me to assign the following users: Richabanker. Note that only , repo collaborators and people who have commented on this issue/PR can be assigned. Additionally, issues/PRs can only have 10 assignees at the same time. For more information please see <detailsIn response to : /assign /sig instrumentation /sig cloud-provider Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details
/assign
/triage accepted
/remove-triage accepted
/triage accepted

Related discussion:
text: // Start the controller manager HTTP server if c.SecureServing != nil { unsecuredMux := genericcontrollermanager.NewBaseHandler(&c.ComponentConfig.Generic.Debugging, healthzHandler) <ins> if utilfeature.DefaultFeatureGate.Enabled(features.ComponentSLIs) { slis.SLIMetricsWithReset{}.Install(unsecuredMux) } </ins> handler := genericcontrollermanager.BuildHandlerChain(unsecuredMux, &c.Authorization, &c.Authentication) // TODO: handle stoppedCh and listenerStoppedCh returned by c.SecureServing.Serve if _, _, err := c.SecureServing.Serve(handler, 0, stopCh); err != nil {
Code change:
After merged, build logs for e2e tests have started showing stack traces that look like: It seems like the used in this is nil I have a suspicion this is happening for storage tests that skip No new stack traces in build logs Run e2e tests against the in-development version of kubernetes I identified when this started happening by looking for an increase in build-log size is the first build where this started happening, which happens to be the first build after merged, which is the PR that introduced this new way of invoking <details</details<details</details<details</details<details</details<details</details<details</details
/sig testing /triage accepted /assign To put this on your radar
/cc
Correct. This happens because of the ordering in Tests gets skipped before is called. This avoids the expensive namespace creation/deletion for tests that don't need to run. The for then gets executed although the framework didn't get initialized. My preferred solution is to document that the framework instance might not be initialized in an AfterEach callback and add a nil check to .
See Only was affected. The other framework extensions use DeferCleanup, which only runs when needed.

Related discussion:
text: // with gingko.BeforeEach/AfterEach/DeferCleanup. // // When a test runs, functions will be invoked in this order: <ins> // - BeforeEaches defined by tests before f.NewDefaultFramework //   in the order in which they were defined (first-in-first-out) </ins> // - f.BeforeEach <del> // - all BeforeEaches in the order in which they were defined (first-in-first-out) </del> <ins> // - BeforeEaches defined by tests after f.NewDefaultFramework </ins> // - It callback // - all AfterEaches in the order in which they were defined // - all DeferCleanups with the order reversed (first-in-last-out) // - f.AfterEach <ins> // // Because a test might skip test execution in a BeforeEach that runs // before f.BeforeEach, AfterEach callbacks that depend on the // framework instance must check whether it was initialized. They can // do that by checking f.ClientSet for nil. DeferCleanup callbacks // don't need to do this because they get defined when the test // runs. </ins> NewFrameworkExtensions []func(f *Framework) )
Code change:
After merged, build logs for e2e tests have started showing stack traces that look like: It seems like the used in this is nil I have a suspicion this is happening for storage tests that skip No new stack traces in build logs Run e2e tests against the in-development version of kubernetes I identified when this started happening by looking for an increase in build-log size is the first build where this started happening, which happens to be the first build after merged, which is the PR that introduced this new way of invoking <details</details<details</details<details</details<details</details<details</details<details</details
/sig testing /triage accepted /assign To put this on your radar
/cc
Correct. This happens because of the ordering in Tests gets skipped before is called. This avoids the expensive namespace creation/deletion for tests that don't need to run. The for then gets executed although the framework didn't get initialized. My preferred solution is to document that the framework instance might not be initialized in an AfterEach callback and add a nil check to .
See Only was affected. The other framework extensions use DeferCleanup, which only runs when needed.

Related discussion:
text: } } <del> // Paranoia-- prevent reuse! </del> <ins> // Unsetting this is relevant for a following test that uses // the same instance because it might not reach f.BeforeEach // when some other BeforeEach skips the test first. </ins> f.Namespace = nil f.clientConfig = nil f.ClientSet = nil
Code change:
After merged, build logs for e2e tests have started showing stack traces that look like: It seems like the used in this is nil I have a suspicion this is happening for storage tests that skip No new stack traces in build logs Run e2e tests against the in-development version of kubernetes I identified when this started happening by looking for an increase in build-log size is the first build where this started happening, which happens to be the first build after merged, which is the PR that introduced this new way of invoking <details</details<details</details<details</details<details</details<details</details<details</details
/sig testing /triage accepted /assign To put this on your radar
/cc
Correct. This happens because of the ordering in Tests gets skipped before is called. This avoids the expensive namespace creation/deletion for tests that don't need to run. The for then gets executed although the framework didn't get initialized. My preferred solution is to document that the framework instance might not be initialized in an AfterEach callback and add a nil check to .
See Only was affected. The other framework extensions use DeferCleanup, which only runs when needed.

Related discussion:
text: framework.NewFrameworkExtensions = append(framework.NewFrameworkExtensions, func(f *framework.Framework) { ginkgo.AfterEach(func() { <ins> if f.ClientSet == nil { // Test didn't reach f.BeforeEach, most // likely because the test got // skipped. Nothing to check... return } </ins> e2enode.AllNodesReady(f.ClientSet, 3*time.Minute) }) },
Code change:
release-master-informing: capz-windows-containerd-masterKubernetes e2e suite: [It] [sig-node] Container Lifecycle Hook when create a pod with lifecycle hook should execute prestop https hook properly [MinimumKubeletVersion:1.23] [NodeConformance] Kubernetes e2e suite: [It] [sig-node] Container Lifecycle Hook when create a pod with lifecycle hook should execute poststart https hook properly [MinimumKubeletVersion:1.23] [NodeConformance] Both the tests have been failing during most of the runs since 20th October Kubernetes e2e suite: [It] [sig-node] Container Lifecycle Hook when create a pod with lifecycle hook should execute prestop https hook properly [MinimumKubeletVersion:1.23] [NodeConformance] | 1m6s -- | -- {Oct 31 18:42:02.425: Timed out after 30.001s. Expected <errors.errorString | 0xc0015283b0: { s: "failed to match regexp "GET /echo?msg=prestop" in output "I1031 18:41:06. 8988 ] Started HTTP server on port 9090nI1031 18:41:06. 8988 ] Started UDP server on port 9091n"", } to be nil failed (0xc000f1d000) +0x469 () +0x335} Kubernetes e2e suite: [It] [sig-node] Container Lifecycle Hook when create a pod with lifecycle hook should execute poststart https hook properly [MinimumKubeletVersion:1.23] [NodeConformance] | 5m11s -- | -- {Oct 31 19:05:50.205: timed out while waiting for pod container-lifecycle-hook-6892/pod-with-poststart-https-hook to be running and ready failed (PodClient).CreateSync(0xc000eb5920, 0x22?) +0x94 (0xc0045e8c00) +0x73 () +0x325} No response_ /sig windows cc
/triage accepted /cc
These failures happen also with Kubernetes master + containerd master with Flannel CNI. Testgrid link:
I figured out why these new failures appear. I've submitted the fix via PR
This issue is also affecting 1.25 tests: If possible, we should cherry-pick to the release-1.25 branch once it's merged on master.

Related discussion:
text: /* Release : v1.23 Testname: Pod Lifecycle, poststart https hook <del> Description: When a post-start handler is specified in the container lifecycle using a 'HttpGet' action, then the handler MUST be invoked before the container is terminated. A server pod is created that will serve https requests, create a second pod with a container lifecycle specifying a post-start that invokes the server pod to validate that the post-start is executed. </del> <ins> Description: When a post-start handler is specified in the container lifecycle using a 'HttpGet' action, then the handler MUST be invoked before the container is terminated. A server pod is created that will serve https requests, create a second pod on the same node with a container lifecycle specifying a post-start that invokes the server pod to validate that the post-start is executed. </ins> */ ginkgo.It("should execute poststart https hook properly [MinimumKubeletVersion:1.23] [NodeConformance]", func() { lifecycle := &v1.Lifecycle{