Change:
} // waitForPod watches the given pod until the exitCondition is true <del> func waitForPod(podClient corev1client.PodsGetter, ns, name string, exitCondition watchtools.ConditionFunc) (*corev1.Pod, error) { // TODO: expose the timeout ctx, cancel := watchtools.ContextWithOptionalTimeout(context.Background(), 0*time.Second) </del> <ins> func waitForPod(podClient corev1client.PodsGetter, ns, name string, timeout time.Duration, exitCondition watchtools.ConditionFunc) (*corev1.Pod, error) { ctx, cancel := watchtools.ContextWithOptionalTimeout(context.Background(), timeout) </ins> defer cancel() preconditionFunc := func(store cache.Store) (bool, error) {

Discussion:
<!-- Please only use this template for submitting reports about continuously failing tests or jobs in Kubernetes CI --Which jobs are failing: gce-master-scale-correctness Which test(s) are failing: [sig-cli] Kubectl client Simple pod should return command exit codes Since when has it been failing: 02/05 Testgrid link: https://k8s- Reason for failure: Anything else we need to know: /sig cli
/priority critical-urgent /assign
The test seems to be flaking quite a lot recently ! Friendly ping, sig-cli, could you take a look?
FTR, these are really blocking tests and it's getting more urgent given the forthcoming 1.18 release
Full log of the failure: It looks like the finishes with error. Strange, I thought is supposed to create a pod. Would really appreciate if someone from sig-cli could take a look
4 out of last 8 runs failed: https://k8s- /sig scalability
Another flaky, related test:
SIG CLI Leads -- any update on this? This is affecting scalability signal. /assign
-- Please keep tabs on this one.
yep, monitoring
It looks like there's a race between when the pod gets created and when we try to connect to it, thus we're seeing but further down in the logs the pod is , I'll be looking more into ti.
Thanks, Any update on this?
/cc
Sorry I got sidetracked yesterday and I'm back investigating this just now...
Probable fix in
Will continue to monitor here and reopen if needed :+1:
Unfortunately - it seems that the problem still exists - the test failed today (an hour ago): :( ^^
I'll check it, thx Wojtek for pointing that out.
- I'm not familiar with kubectl code, but I took a quick look and what I found is that this waitForPod() thing is happening only for pods with RestartPolicyNever: I must be missing something here, but for the case that failed it's not really the case, which means we don't wait for it?
This particular one is using , see the actual invocation that failed: That's why I started with this approach.
Sorry - the one for which the bug was originally opened.

But the today`s failure is actually slightly different (the same test, different case - sorry): The restart policy for this one is
Gotcha, so it looks like we progressed, I'll check the possible paths for this one, something tells me we're missing another timeout somewhere :wink:
OK - I think I know what is going on here. Here is what is happening (for the test case from two comments above): the test is setting "-i", so interactive mode is switched on that option triggers that Attach option defaults to true: over the Run() command, we get to the handleAttachPod: handleAttachPod is calling waitForPod And waitForPod is broken. The problem is the preconditionFunc: which is below passed to the UntilWithSync function UntilWithSync underneath is creating an informer and calling that function against its state: But the informer is initialized from apiserver watchcache, so it may be lagging. In large clusters we are observing lags in the order of small hundreds of milliseconds and that seem to be enough. What is happening is that: informer is initialized (but the pod creation is not yet reflected in it) the preconditionFunc is called the state doesn't contain that pod (yet) the whole thing fails with that error I actually believe, that just removing the preconditionFunc should actually solve the problem. I opened for that.
^^ - please take a look at the PR that I assigned to you (it's literally one-liner as of now - if you want to add tests or anything like that, feel free to pick it up).
Actually I went ahead, and fixed couple other commands too - so it's no longer one-liner. But still short one :)