jiebi/CodeConvo huggingface dataset:
Code change:
As suggested in , some portions of the code contains the map checking for nil values in map, and others don't have. Even though we're never assigning nil values to this map, we should standardize the portions that does not have this check in module. Example: Should be like this: I can take care of this issue.
/sig network
There have been discussions of deprecating the user-space proxier. Maybe transfer it to . A question is if anybody still uses it. Seems like you do, so if possible please explain if you have a use-case where the user-space proxier is wanted/needed.
Hey Actually, I was casually reading the source code and I saw a over there regarding the nil checks. Regarding your question, we should check if anyone actually uses it though, or maybe discuss its usage or deprecation a little further.
Quick question though: I saw in the news that the user-space proxy porting was near completion, maybe it's worth talking to them in order to check upon the status.
I don't object to making it clearer or more consistent, if you want to spend time on it, but it's not a high priority. That said, I think a nil value in that map would be really bad (and should be impossible) and I don't know how we would raise a signal about it.
let us know if you want to try to fix it, otherwise we can just close this.
I already opened a PR with the clearer nil checks for this specific module in , so you can review it. I think whether this would have nil values into the service map we should discuss this apart and try to reproduce this case (if any would happen).
PR submitted, so let's review and discuss further there. /assign dcbw /triage accepted

Related discussion:
text: } state, exists := lb.services[svcPort] <del> if !exists { </del> <ins> if !exists || state == nil { </ins> return } for _, existingEndpoint := range state.endpoints {
Code change:
As suggested in , some portions of the code contains the map checking for nil values in map, and others don't have. Even though we're never assigning nil values to this map, we should standardize the portions that does not have this check in module. Example: Should be like this: I can take care of this issue.
/sig network
There have been discussions of deprecating the user-space proxier. Maybe transfer it to . A question is if anybody still uses it. Seems like you do, so if possible please explain if you have a use-case where the user-space proxier is wanted/needed.
Hey Actually, I was casually reading the source code and I saw a over there regarding the nil checks. Regarding your question, we should check if anyone actually uses it though, or maybe discuss its usage or deprecation a little further.
Quick question though: I saw in the news that the user-space proxy porting was near completion, maybe it's worth talking to them in order to check upon the status.
I don't object to making it clearer or more consistent, if you want to spend time on it, but it's not a high priority. That said, I think a nil value in that map would be really bad (and should be impossible) and I don't know how we would raise a signal about it.
let us know if you want to try to fix it, otherwise we can just close this.
I already opened a PR with the clearer nil checks for this specific module in , so you can review it. I think whether this would have nil values into the service map we should discuss this apart and try to reproduce this case (if any would happen).
PR submitted, so let's review and discuss further there. /assign dcbw /triage accepted

Related discussion:
text: func (lb *LoadBalancerRR) resetService(svcPort proxy.ServicePortName) { // If the service is still around, reset but don't delete. <del> if state, ok := lb.services[svcPort]; ok { </del> <ins> if state, ok := lb.services[svcPort]; ok && state != nil { </ins> if len(state.endpoints) > 0 { klog.V(2).InfoS("LoadBalancerRR: Removing endpoints service", "servicePortName", svcPort) state.endpoints = []string{}
Code change:
As suggested in , some portions of the code contains the map checking for nil values in map, and others don't have. Even though we're never assigning nil values to this map, we should standardize the portions that does not have this check in module. Example: Should be like this: I can take care of this issue.
/sig network
There have been discussions of deprecating the user-space proxier. Maybe transfer it to . A question is if anybody still uses it. Seems like you do, so if possible please explain if you have a use-case where the user-space proxier is wanted/needed.
Hey Actually, I was casually reading the source code and I saw a over there regarding the nil checks. Regarding your question, we should check if anyone actually uses it though, or maybe discuss its usage or deprecation a little further.
Quick question though: I saw in the news that the user-space proxy porting was near completion, maybe it's worth talking to them in order to check upon the status.
I don't object to making it clearer or more consistent, if you want to spend time on it, but it's not a high priority. That said, I think a nil value in that map would be really bad (and should be impossible) and I don't know how we would raise a signal about it.
let us know if you want to try to fix it, otherwise we can just close this.
I already opened a PR with the clearer nil checks for this specific module in , so you can review it. I think whether this would have nil values into the service map we should discuss this apart and try to reproduce this case (if any would happen).
PR submitted, so let's review and discuss further there. /assign dcbw /triage accepted

Related discussion:
text: defer lb.lock.Unlock() state, exists := lb.services[svcPort] <del> if !exists { </del> <ins> if !exists || state == nil { </ins> return } for ip, affinity := range state.affinity.affinityMap {
Code change:
As discussed in , Endpoint(Slice) controllers can get stuck if an Endpoints or EndpointSlice resource is stuck in a terminating state. I don't think there's much we can do for Endpoints here since the same name is reused, but EndpointSlice controllers can ignore EndpointSlices in a terminating state. See No response All supported versions Any Any Any Any Any
/sig network
/triage accepted
deleting a service with a finalizer doesn't affect the endpointslice, it doesn't change its status to termination or unready Repro: finalizer to the service and delete it, it keeps waiting until the finalizer is removed with the deletion timestamp set. the endpoint slice associated Do you mean that when the endpoint slice controller detects that the Service is being deleted should switch the endpoint slice status to Terminating? cc:
I don't think we need to do anything special if the Service is waiting to be deleted. There are many legitimate reasons for this to happen, including waiting for infrastructure to be removed. My main concern with a finalizer was that one on an EndpointSlice could cause the controller to get stuck on a Service. We don't have the same risk with a finalizer on a Service - I don't think that would cause the controller to get stuck in any way.
i was unable to repro the issue on my machine: I was monitoring the logs of , and the endpointslice controller never complained about , when I deleted the service. Though, I was able to get the controller to log this error under a different scenario. If we don't explicitly remove the finalizer from the endpointslice, and instead re-create the pod and service like: From what I can understand, because the endpointslice with the finalizer is owned by a service with a different UID than the new endpointslice, it is marked as expected for deletion . The endpointslice controllers calls , which returns true for the endpointslice with the finalizer, because of the above reason. I might be wrong anywhere here, so please let me know if that is the case. As for further action, I'm not sure what can be done here? We could check the endpointslice for finalizers and then skip them . Keen to hear your thoughts about this.

Related discussion:
text: return err } <ins> // Drop EndpointSlices that have been marked for deletion to prevent the controller from getting stuck. endpointSlices = dropEndpointSlicesPendingDeletion(endpointSlices) </ins> if c.endpointSliceTracker.StaleSlices(service, endpointSlices) { return endpointsliceutil.NewStaleInformerCache("EndpointSlice informer cache is out of date") }
Code change:
As discussed in , Endpoint(Slice) controllers can get stuck if an Endpoints or EndpointSlice resource is stuck in a terminating state. I don't think there's much we can do for Endpoints here since the same name is reused, but EndpointSlice controllers can ignore EndpointSlices in a terminating state. See No response All supported versions Any Any Any Any Any
/sig network
/triage accepted
deleting a service with a finalizer doesn't affect the endpointslice, it doesn't change its status to termination or unready Repro: finalizer to the service and delete it, it keeps waiting until the finalizer is removed with the deletion timestamp set. the endpoint slice associated Do you mean that when the endpoint slice controller detects that the Service is being deleted should switch the endpoint slice status to Terminating? cc:
I don't think we need to do anything special if the Service is waiting to be deleted. There are many legitimate reasons for this to happen, including waiting for infrastructure to be removed. My main concern with a finalizer was that one on an EndpointSlice could cause the controller to get stuck on a Service. We don't have the same risk with a finalizer on a Service - I don't think that would cause the controller to get stuck in any way.
i was unable to repro the issue on my machine: I was monitoring the logs of , and the endpointslice controller never complained about , when I deleted the service. Though, I was able to get the controller to log this error under a different scenario. If we don't explicitly remove the finalizer from the endpointslice, and instead re-create the pod and service like: From what I can understand, because the endpointslice with the finalizer is owned by a service with a different UID than the new endpointslice, it is marked as expected for deletion . The endpointslice controllers calls , which returns true for the endpointslice with the finalizer, because of the above reason. I might be wrong anywhere here, so please let me know if that is the case. As for further action, I'm not sure what can be done here? We could check the endpointslice for finalizers and then skip them . Keen to hear your thoughts about this.

Related discussion:
text: } endpointslicemetrics.EndpointSliceSyncs.WithLabelValues(metricLabel).Inc() } <ins> func dropEndpointSlicesPendingDeletion(endpointSlices []*discovery.EndpointSlice) []*discovery.EndpointSlice { n := 0 for _, endpointSlice := range endpointSlices { if endpointSlice.DeletionTimestamp == nil { endpointSlices[n] = endpointSlice n++ } } return endpointSlices[:n] } </ins>
Code change:
As discussed in , Endpoint(Slice) controllers can get stuck if an Endpoints or EndpointSlice resource is stuck in a terminating state. I don't think there's much we can do for Endpoints here since the same name is reused, but EndpointSlice controllers can ignore EndpointSlices in a terminating state. See No response All supported versions Any Any Any Any Any
/sig network
/triage accepted
deleting a service with a finalizer doesn't affect the endpointslice, it doesn't change its status to termination or unready Repro: finalizer to the service and delete it, it keeps waiting until the finalizer is removed with the deletion timestamp set. the endpoint slice associated Do you mean that when the endpoint slice controller detects that the Service is being deleted should switch the endpoint slice status to Terminating? cc:
I don't think we need to do anything special if the Service is waiting to be deleted. There are many legitimate reasons for this to happen, including waiting for infrastructure to be removed. My main concern with a finalizer was that one on an EndpointSlice could cause the controller to get stuck on a Service. We don't have the same risk with a finalizer on a Service - I don't think that would cause the controller to get stuck in any way.
i was unable to repro the issue on my machine: I was monitoring the logs of , and the endpointslice controller never complained about , when I deleted the service. Though, I was able to get the controller to log this error under a different scenario. If we don't explicitly remove the finalizer from the endpointslice, and instead re-create the pod and service like: From what I can understand, because the endpointslice with the finalizer is owned by a service with a different UID than the new endpointslice, it is marked as expected for deletion . The endpointslice controllers calls , which returns true for the endpointslice with the finalizer, because of the above reason. I might be wrong anywhere here, so please let me know if that is the case. As for further action, I'm not sure what can be done here? We could check the endpointslice for finalizers and then skip them . Keen to hear your thoughts about this.

Related discussion:
text: // 1. One or more of the provided EndpointSlices have older generations than the //    corresponding tracked ones. // 2. The tracker is expecting one or more of the provided EndpointSlices to be <del> //    deleted. </del> <ins> //    deleted. (EndpointSlices that have already been marked for deletion are ignored here.) </ins> // 3. The tracker is tracking EndpointSlices that have not been provided. func (est *EndpointSliceTracker) StaleSlices(service *v1.Service, endpointSlices []*discovery.EndpointSlice) bool { est.lock.Lock()
Code change:
As discussed in , Endpoint(Slice) controllers can get stuck if an Endpoints or EndpointSlice resource is stuck in a terminating state. I don't think there's much we can do for Endpoints here since the same name is reused, but EndpointSlice controllers can ignore EndpointSlices in a terminating state. See No response All supported versions Any Any Any Any Any
/sig network
/triage accepted
deleting a service with a finalizer doesn't affect the endpointslice, it doesn't change its status to termination or unready Repro: finalizer to the service and delete it, it keeps waiting until the finalizer is removed with the deletion timestamp set. the endpoint slice associated Do you mean that when the endpoint slice controller detects that the Service is being deleted should switch the endpoint slice status to Terminating? cc:
I don't think we need to do anything special if the Service is waiting to be deleted. There are many legitimate reasons for this to happen, including waiting for infrastructure to be removed. My main concern with a finalizer was that one on an EndpointSlice could cause the controller to get stuck on a Service. We don't have the same risk with a finalizer on a Service - I don't think that would cause the controller to get stuck in any way.
i was unable to repro the issue on my machine: I was monitoring the logs of , and the endpointslice controller never complained about , when I deleted the service. Though, I was able to get the controller to log this error under a different scenario. If we don't explicitly remove the finalizer from the endpointslice, and instead re-create the pod and service like: From what I can understand, because the endpointslice with the finalizer is owned by a service with a different UID than the new endpointslice, it is marked as expected for deletion . The endpointslice controllers calls , which returns true for the endpointslice with the finalizer, because of the above reason. I might be wrong anywhere here, so please let me know if that is the case. As for further action, I'm not sure what can be done here? We could check the endpointslice for finalizers and then skip them . Keen to hear your thoughts about this.

Related discussion:
text: epSlice1NewerGen := epSlice1.DeepCopy() epSlice1NewerGen.Generation = 2 <ins> epTerminatingSlice := epSlice1.DeepCopy() now := metav1.Now() epTerminatingSlice.DeletionTimestamp = &now </ins> testCases := []struct { name         string tracker      *EndpointSliceTracker
Code change:
Cluster api provides a framework to run the e2e tests which uses the conformance image: The gmsa tests use bash to install the webhook: The test will fail when run in the conformance image because of the bash: we should install the component another way run this e2e conformance image with /sig windows fyi <details</details<details</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
Conformance image:
Hi does the "work e2e" test case pass? Deploying GMSA webhook is the same for both "work e2e" and this test case.
no, they both fail due to bash not being present in the conformance image. The gmsa tests themselves pass if I run locally
/sig testing

Related discussion:
text: "context" "fmt" "os" <del> "os/exec" "path" </del> "regexp" "strings" "time" <ins> "github.com/onsi/ginkgo" "github.com/onsi/gomega" appsv1 "k8s.io/api/apps/v1" </ins> v1 "k8s.io/api/core/v1" rbacv1 "k8s.io/api/rbac/v1" metav1 "k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/apis/meta/v1" "k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/util/uuid" clientset "k8s.io/client-go/kubernetes" "k8s.io/kubernetes/test/e2e/framework" <ins> e2epod "k8s.io/kubernetes/test/e2e/framework/pod" </ins> e2eskipper "k8s.io/kubernetes/test/e2e/framework/skipper" imageutils "k8s.io/kubernetes/test/utils/image" <del> "github.com/onsi/ginkgo" "github.com/onsi/gomega" </del> ) const (
Code change:
Cluster api provides a framework to run the e2e tests which uses the conformance image: The gmsa tests use bash to install the webhook: The test will fail when run in the conformance image because of the bash: we should install the component another way run this e2e conformance image with /sig windows fyi <details</details<details</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
Conformance image:
Hi does the "work e2e" test case pass? Deploying GMSA webhook is the same for both "work e2e" and this test case.
no, they both fail due to bash not being present in the conformance image. The gmsa tests themselves pass if I run locally
/sig testing

Related discussion:
text: gmsaCustomResourceName = "gmsa-e2e" // gmsaWebhookDeployScriptURL is the URL of the deploy script for the GMSA webook <del> // TODO(wk8): we should pin versions. </del> gmsaWebhookDeployScriptURL = "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/kubernetes-sigs/windows-gmsa/master/admission-webhook/deploy/deploy-gmsa-webhook.sh" // output from the nltest /query command should have this in it
Code change:
Cluster api provides a framework to run the e2e tests which uses the conformance image: The gmsa tests use bash to install the webhook: The test will fail when run in the conformance image because of the bash: we should install the component another way run this e2e conformance image with /sig windows fyi <details</details<details</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
Conformance image:
Hi does the "work e2e" test case pass? Deploying GMSA webhook is the same for both "work e2e" and this test case.
no, they both fail due to bash not being present in the conformance image. The gmsa tests themselves pass if I run locally
/sig testing

Related discussion:
text: ginkgo.By("retrieving the contents of the GMSACredentialSpec custom resource manifest from the node") crdManifestContents := retrieveCRDManifestFileContents(f, node) <del> ginkgo.By("downloading the GMSA webhook deploy script") deployScriptPath, err := downloadFile(gmsaWebhookDeployScriptURL) defer func() { os.Remove(deployScriptPath) }() if err != nil { framework.Failf(err.Error()) } </del> ginkgo.By("deploying the GMSA webhook") <del> webhookCleanUp, err := deployGmsaWebhook(f, deployScriptPath) </del> <ins> webhookCleanUp, err := deployGmsaWebhook(f) </ins> defer webhookCleanUp() if err != nil { framework.Failf(err.Error())
Code change:
Cluster api provides a framework to run the e2e tests which uses the conformance image: The gmsa tests use bash to install the webhook: The test will fail when run in the conformance image because of the bash: we should install the component another way run this e2e conformance image with /sig windows fyi <details</details<details</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
Conformance image:
Hi does the "work e2e" test case pass? Deploying GMSA webhook is the same for both "work e2e" and this test case.
no, they both fail due to bash not being present in the conformance image. The gmsa tests themselves pass if I run locally
/sig testing

Related discussion:
text: } return strings.Contains(output, "This is a test file.") }, 1*time.Minute, 1*time.Second).Should(gomega.BeTrue()) }) }) })
Code change:
Cluster api provides a framework to run the e2e tests which uses the conformance image: The gmsa tests use bash to install the webhook: The test will fail when run in the conformance image because of the bash: we should install the component another way run this e2e conformance image with /sig windows fyi <details</details<details</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
Conformance image:
Hi does the "work e2e" test case pass? Deploying GMSA webhook is the same for both "work e2e" and this test case.
no, they both fail due to bash not being present in the conformance image. The gmsa tests themselves pass if I run locally
/sig testing

Related discussion:
text: // createServiceAccount creates a service account, and returns its name. func createServiceAccount(f *framework.Framework) string { <del> accountName := f.Namespace.Name + "-sa" </del> <ins> accountName := f.Namespace.Name + "-sa-" + string(uuid.NewUUID()) </ins> account := &v1.ServiceAccount{ ObjectMeta: metav1.ObjectMeta{ Name:      accountName,