Change:
return suggestedDelay, utilerrors.NewAggregate(errs) } <del> // makeFlowSchemaConditionPatch takes in a condition and returns the patch status as a json. func makeFlowSchemaConditionPatch(condition flowcontrol.FlowSchemaCondition) ([]byte, error) { o := struct { Status flowcontrol.FlowSchemaStatus `json:"status"` }{ Status: flowcontrol.FlowSchemaStatus{ Conditions: []flowcontrol.FlowSchemaCondition{ condition, }, }, } return json.Marshal(o) </del> <ins> func apply(client flowcontrolclient.FlowSchemaInterface, fsu fsStatusUpdate, asFieldManager string) error { applyOptions := metav1.ApplyOptions{FieldManager: asFieldManager, Force: true} // the condition field in fsStatusUpdate holds the new condition we want to update. // TODO: this will break when we have multiple conditions for a flowschema _, err := client.ApplyStatus(context.TODO(), toFlowSchemaApplyConfiguration(fsu), applyOptions) return err } func toFlowSchemaApplyConfiguration(fsUpdate fsStatusUpdate) *flowcontrolapplyconfiguration.FlowSchemaApplyConfiguration { condition := flowcontrolapplyconfiguration.FlowSchemaCondition(). WithType(fsUpdate.condition.Type). WithStatus(fsUpdate.condition.Status). WithReason(fsUpdate.condition.Reason). WithLastTransitionTime(fsUpdate.condition.LastTransitionTime). WithMessage(fsUpdate.condition.Message) return flowcontrolapplyconfiguration.FlowSchema(fsUpdate.flowSchema.Name). WithStatus(flowcontrolapplyconfiguration.FlowSchemaStatus(). WithConditions(condition), ) </ins> } // shouldDelayUpdate checks to see if a flowschema has been updated too often and returns true if a delay is needed.

Discussion:
Integration test timed out due to the following error The error appeared 748 times in the log. Looks like lots of churning happens during the apf configuration bootstrapping phase. Is there a race condition between when the type is being registered and the API calls? Stack trace: Integration job link: PR: I searched for this error in CI and this PR, looks like we only see this error in this PR so far. So I am hoping it has not introduced any flake. (maybe we need to let more time to pass to start seeing flakes) We should not see this error I saw it only in the PR mentioned.
/sig api-machinery cc
I see
The fact that it happens to a non-mandatory object implies that the object was received from the server, so the type must be in the server. The APF config-consuming controller does this:
Look for the output from this line:
Another PR with this failure:
the panic means the request scope FieldManager is nil that is initialized here: OpenAPIModels is set here: called from here: and openAPIModels is constructed here: it looks like it is possible for openapiconfig to be unset, which causes the openapi models to be nil, which causes apply to panic. I don't know if it is only the integration tests that are subject to that configuration. cc /priority important-soon (since this is now being exercised in bring-up of integration test servers)
if APF is creating/bootstrapping the objects without using apply, and then updating status using apply, that would explain how the object exists but apply fails
I suspect that APF is not successfully updating status at all in the integration tests with this server configuration
do you want me to revert , while we work on a solution?
I don't know how bad the test impact is. Work with / to determine if we should revert or fix forward
: I do not follow why you talked about server-side stuff then suggested the problem is in the client (a controller in the kube-apiserver) not supplying a fieldManager. The client does supply the fieldManager, for both creates and updates. See the following lines:
Different field manager. is set server-side in the endpoint handler based on the server configuration.
So if the problem is server-side, why did you suggest the problem is in the client?

Regarding the client, I looked in and found this line: actually several of the same form, all with the same fieldManager.
I don't think I did suggest that :) all of the setup and calls in are server-side
: please help me understand . That is about the client side. Are you saying that a client that creates an object using and later updates the object using --- with a non-empty fieldManager in both --- will run into this server-side scenario? If so, is that because this client behavior is wrong or because there is a bug server side?
That was in response to , trying to figure out how the object was created but could not be updated. Yes, when the server is not configured to enable openapi and therefore does not have apply enabled. Because the server is misconfigured (which, from what I can tell, is limited to some of the server instances started for integration tests)
Looking at and it is not obvious to me whether or how openapi could be disabled. Would that be by turning off the feature flag? FYI, the inclusion of "V3" in the flag makes me unsure what the server does about other versions. : I think you are saying that it is possible to disable openapi and that this in turn disables server-side apply. That seems kind of surprising to me. Does this mean that it is simply incorrect to run a client that does server-side apply with a server that has openapi disabled? Is this intended? Is it documented anywhere?
It's not intended as an externalized configuration option. integration tests have the ability to fiddle with many of the config struct options in the server that a kube-apiserver binary invocation could not. They intentionally use this to do things like inject specialized authorizers / authenticators for testing purposes, but also can unintentionally result in a test server that doesn't match a real API server invocation. I think this is an integration test server configuration problem, which should be fixed.
is correct that we have a misconfiguration in the integration tests and SSA is only enabled on a subset of integration tests. I'd like to understand the test failure conditions a bit better though. The can be consistently reproduced on a non SSA targeted test. (Eg: selected from one of the test failures). However, I'm seeing the panic message while the test is still green and passes locally.

it's a bit bizarre what contributes to the flakiness of the test because the FieldManager panic can be reproduced 100% of the time.
The panic occurs when APF is updating status (which it just switched to do using SSA). The APF status update failure does not block the API requests the test cares about, so the test passes. I could see extra CPU usage contributing to flakiness.
Thanks for the explanation. Created to fix the integration test configurations.
/triage accepted
The integration test job started timing out dramatically last night (50% of runs) once merged. Since that was the only change made to integration tests recently, it seems related. I think we should revert (and therefore ) until the test impact is understood
revert of -
did this get fully reverted? we're still seeing panics in integration tests over this:
bumping priority and milestoning until we know we're not currently triggering panics
looks like it got reintroduced in , revert open in
For integration tests, maybe we can cheat and cache the OpenAPI data, so that it's not recomputed for each test?
:-/ maybe... but I really don't want to have non-real init paths in integration if at all possible
I wish we could go a little further in lazily initializing openapi (especially v2), so let's see what we can do here (after code-freeze probably)
if SSA is actively using the openapi, it being lazy won't help, right?
does the revert mean that we can remove milestone v1.24 from this issue?
Yes, cleared
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs. This bot triages issues and PRs according to the following rules: After 90d of inactivity, is applied After 30d of inactivity since was applied, is applied After 30d of inactivity since was applied, the issue is closed You can: Mark this issue or PR as fresh with Mark this issue or PR as rotten with Close this issue or PR with Offer to help out with [Issue Triage][1] Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at . /lifecycle stale [1]:
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs.

This bot triages issues and PRs according to the following rules: After 90d of inactivity, is applied After 30d of inactivity since was applied, is applied After 30d of inactivity since was applied, the issue is closed You can: Mark this issue or PR as fresh with Close this issue or PR with Offer to help out with [Issue Triage][1] Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at . /lifecycle rotten [1]:
/remove-lifecycle rotten
Taking a fresh look at this PR and wondering if it has been mostly fixed already? From comments my understanding is that this panic occurred due to two conditions: running as part of the integration test suite is asked to service an SSA request while are nil. The apiservice has logic to panic in this case. From the code path commented is nil when the server is created with is nil. APF worker (running alongside an integration test) issues an SSA request to the test apiserver. Since the apiserver is misconfigured it panics. This panic could happen sporadically because sometimes the tests finish before the APF worker is able to issue the request. As a brief check to see if this might be fixed, I ran the test mentioned was failing from SSA. I logged out the 's created and found that they all had managed fields. I saw this as an indication SSA was now functioning properly. Indeed, to start the test server the function calls . This function has a code path which unconditionally leads to the apiserver's being set. calls before running the returned apiserver: calls before using the returned config to create the returned apiserver: uses which sets : Thus, any test using should no longer be affected by this panic. The question then becomes: do all integration tests start their servers in this way? It's hard to say. I found a PR (, ) which refactors many occurrences of the old stanza: Into something using the new method: ` But it appears is still being used in a few integration tests: Should these occurrences be refactored to use too?
There was a ton of changes I did around that. But the last PR (already removing the old is already out for review): - FYI Thinking about it now, I guess I agree that the problem might have been 10 different way kube-apiserver was set up through different tests.

I just don't know why it was causing flakes, not failing consistently...
There were definitely test setups that were not enabling openapi in the recent past. Two possibilities for flakes: Enabling openapi in all integration test setups was expensive and caused spurious timeouts The excessive numbers of background panics handled and logged in integration tests when the API server tried to handle SSA requests bogged down the CI machine (I think something like 40,000 panics with full stack traces each were getting logged)
i don't think that's the case. With the recent changes that I was doing as part of I think OpenAPI is already enabled for all tests having kube-apiserver (almost all) and that seems to work. But you remainded me that back then we also had an issue that we were running many more tests simulanuously, which could have been contributing to this problem significantly. The second reason is definitely possible contributor too. I guess my concern was that if some requests were panicing due to lack of OpenAPI, this means that these aren't really needed. But that actually might make sense - the fact that we weren't able to upgrade status of PriorityLevels/FlowSchemas shouldn't prevent non P&F-tests from succeeding, and that worked in P&F tests...
I think the panics were happening in async controllers, and no functionality blocked by the controllers intersected with the surface being tested, it just (maybe) caused log/perf issues
I believe has resolved the panic issue, I was able to verify with which changes the priority & fairness controller to use server side apply. Before merged, I analyzed the integration log: Integration test log file from an unrelated pr does not contain any trace of the panic as expected: On the other hand, the log file from integration job for (before merged) had plenty of these panics even though the integration job turned green: I wanted to check which tests produced these panics, so I did a breakdown by package Then I narrowed it down to the individual test(s): Before merged, the above tests used , and either is or is which results in to be nil. But a quick code search revealed that many more integration tests used , so why were the other tests not affected by the panic?

I inspected the log of a test that was not affected by the panic, and grepped for , and found the following: In the above case, the apf controller had not advanced far enough, the controller was active for about , may be these tests finish quickly and signals the server to shutdown before the apf controller can send an APPLY command. On the other hand, log from a test that was affected by the panic shows that the apf controller was active for more than , and has lot more activities: I am assuming that integration tests have at least log level 4. Also, the size of the log file differed significantly, without panics around , and with panics over and changed all these tests to use and now integration log for shows no panic.
Great! (This also proves why eliminating gazilion different things of initializing stuff in favor of one makes sense). - FYI ^^ - let's merge the PR then - I just one question there, so let's wait for Jordan to respond it.
Can we just force the openapi/fieldmanager to be set at start-time now that SSA is GA, it should basically always be present, rather than fail when SSA is unavailable (that's probably wrong by the way). If that triggers any test flakiness, then we would solve these. We can wait for to be solved since it will almost certainly have a huge impact on this.
Has this been done Jeff?