Change:
_, err := client.CoreV1().Secrets(namespace).Create(secret) framework.ExpectNoError(err, "creating secret %q in namespace %q", secretName, namespace) <ins> // kubectl create -f clusterrole.yaml _, err = client.RbacV1beta1().ClusterRoles().Create(&rbacv1beta1.ClusterRole{ // role for listing ValidatingWebhookConfiguration/MutatingWebhookConfiguration/Namespaces ObjectMeta: metav1.ObjectMeta{Name: "sample-apiserver-reader"}, Rules: []rbacv1beta1.PolicyRule{ rbacv1beta1helpers.NewRule("list").Groups("").Resources("namespaces").RuleOrDie(), rbacv1beta1helpers.NewRule("list").Groups("admissionregistration.k8s.io").Resources("*").RuleOrDie(), }, }) framework.ExpectNoError(err, "creating cluster role %s", "sample-apiserver-reader") _, err = client.RbacV1beta1().ClusterRoleBindings().Create(&rbacv1beta1.ClusterRoleBinding{ ObjectMeta: metav1.ObjectMeta{ Name: "wardler:" + namespace + ":sample-apiserver-reader", }, RoleRef: rbacv1beta1.RoleRef{ APIGroup: "rbac.authorization.k8s.io", Kind:     "ClusterRole", Name:     "sample-apiserver-reader", }, Subjects: []rbacv1beta1.Subject{ { APIGroup:  "", Kind:      "ServiceAccount", Name:      "default", Namespace: namespace, }, }, }) framework.ExpectNoError(err, "creating cluster role binding %s", "wardler:"+namespace+":sample-apiserver-reader") </ins> // kubectl create -f authDelegator.yaml _, err = client.RbacV1beta1().ClusterRoleBindings().Create(&rbacv1beta1.ClusterRoleBinding{ ObjectMeta: metav1.ObjectMeta{

Discussion:
[sig-api-machinery] Aggregator Should be able to support the 1.7 Sample API Server using the current Aggregator More nuanced logs and details can be found at gave up waiting for apiservice wardle to come up successfully Expected error: <errors.errorString | 0xc420131150: { s: "timed out waiting for the condition", } timed out waiting for the condition not to have occurred /priority failing-test /priority important-soon /kind flake /sig-api-machinery /assign can you please help triage this issue?
has made changes that could have affected this recently. made one that'd be even more suspicious but I don't think it has merged yet :) :)
flakes show steady 2-3/day over the past week: which changes are you referring to? the line that's failing isn't doing any discovery, restmapping, etc, at all... just a straight get to the API:
audit log from the test run shows the requests are returning 404s, not 503s
ah, sorry, I misread the log and thought it was a discovery error. Hm.
hmm, there's a second smaller set of failures that are discovery related: looks like those started flaking after which went in on 5/4 looks like some discovery paths had internal retries that could have masked those 404 errors before. since the error that test is encountering is for an unrelated CRD API that is being created/deleted as part of another test, it makes more sense to switch that check to just ensure the extension API group under test is discovered, rather than assert there are no errors looking for other API groups that we know are being dynamically /removed opened to deflake the aggregator e2e check
/assign resolved the discovery issue. now the failure is the one noted in where calls to the extension API are responding with 404 errors
Kubelet log is reporting that the sample-apiserver exited with a return code of 2 and it also shows with a high restart count for the sample-apiserver.

When I extract the sample-apiserver log I'm seeing multiple "panic: Get https://10.0.0.1:443/api/v1/namespaces/kube-system/configmaps/extension-apiserver-authentication: dial tcp 10.0.0.1:443: getsockopt: connection refused" Both failures today are in ipvs clusters which seems to have extensive networking problems. /assign
We are looking into finding the root cause into the problems with the ipvs clusters. I am pretty confident they were triggered by a bad PR, just need to identify which one.
Initial hypothesis is that PR caused it.
We think should fix the IPVS issues.
I see merged and this test is now passing in both pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce and ci-kubernetes-e2e-gci-gce. Hence closing the issue. Thanks all
/reopen The test is failing for the same error again in the following jobs https://k8s- It is one of the top flake from last week failing 47 jobs.
can you please take a look and triage? Thanks
this flake is now blocking this test from being promoted to Conformance suite in 1.11. Is it something we can investigate and resolve soon (today or tomorrow) to increase changes of getting this into 1.11? If not this test has to wait until 1.12 to be promoted.
all I see in the test run logs is 404 errors coming back from that check. can you see anything useful in the container logs for the aggregated server?
/cc
Update: I have been trying to reproduce this failure on my own test cluster (go run ...) and it has passed 128 times in a row so far. I think this means that the issue must be with either an interaction between e2e tests or an issue with the job running the tests.
Looking through recent results this crops up as a flake in presubmit and CI across many configurations... I don't think how we run the test jobs should be affecting this in the slightest. Not sure what's wrong here, but it looks like a pretty typical flakey test (some race / buggy setup/teardown?) nb that may not trivially map to the same way the tests are run though, and itself is a wrapper over
does the API server logs throw any light on whats happening on CI test cluster.

The teardown for the aggregator test is wrong, it tries to delete the deployment "sample-apiserver" when the deployment is actually named "sample-apiserver-deployment", but I don't think that's the issue. It's been like that since the test was . I'll look for conflicts with other tests.
We should probably go ahead and fix that anyway, it might be stomping on another test... Jenny Buckley <:
The namespace controller polls each of the api groups periodically, and it gets this internal error back from the endpoint a couple of times. Maybe related?
unclear... I opened to capture the state of the APIService, extension server pods, and those pod logs in failures cases
It flaked again since your PR merged https://k8s-
All I'm seeing is
I don't think that's related... I see 10-30 of those same rejections in apiserver logs of successful test runs (for example, search for ). I don't see anything in the test setup that grants the sample apiserver permission to run those checks, so it doesn't seem like that would be intermittent or flaky.
I am re-opening this issue since I still see intermittent failure of this test are your pending PRs ( and ) targeted towards these remaining issues? /reopen
this looks like 1.7 API Server image is causing more flakes other than just this test - The test has become lot less flaky after increasing the timeout. Since the official policy for GKE is 2 previous versions, and 1.11 is almost baked, this is the plan discussed with offline: leave the 1.7 test as it is right now create a similar test to the 1.7, but with 1.9 (implies creating a new sample-sever, uploading image, and creating the test). get that new test PR merged and running let it soak for several days, see if in 1.7 - 1.9 the flakiness (latency or whatever is causing it) went away.

if it did, evaluate removing the 1.7 and using the 1.9 let us know what you think of this approach
I think you misunderstood my comment... that only related to kubectl being used against a 1.7-level kube-apiserver serving discovery docs for the v1 API, not a generic 1.7-level extension API server
unrelatedly, moving the test to 1.9-level code once 1.11 is released seems reasonable to me
Thank you Jordan, that's the current plan! We will actually create a parallel 1.9-level test, to see if between 1.7 and 1.9 the internals of API Server fixed what's generating the flakiness and see next steps from there.
Sorry I didn't read the previous discussion close enough. The idea of creating a 1.9 test makes sense.
Pinging to see what are the next steps. Who is taking point to create a parallel test?
last I chated with someone on his team will build 1.9 API server image and push it to GCR. Once that image is available then can help writing the parallel test. I am not sure if the image step is done.
It's on the works. Buiding the sample-image showed to be more complicated than what it seemed to be. If it becomes a blocker let me know. Aish Sundar <:
I'd like to know where we are on this, because the 1.7 thing has come up in the context of multi-arch image builds
and
Hi Aaron and Aish, sorry for the delay. The process to compile, create and upload the sample API Server was not properly documented / maintained, and that plus more burning things is what made it take so long. We are trying to finally have it back (and documented by end of this week). Will keep you posted.
Image created with all the refactor happened on that area, trying upgrading the test at present from 1.7 to 1.9
Update: Upgraded the test, and now the test is not passing... working on this.

• Failure [38.067 seconds] [sig-api-machinery] Aggregator Should be able to support the 1.9 Sample API Server using the current Aggregator [It] creating a new flunders resource Expected error: <errors.StatusError | 0xc420c90cf0: { ErrStatus: { TypeMeta: {Kind: "", APIVersion: ""}, ListMeta: {SelfLink: "", ResourceVersion: "", Continue: ""}, Status: "Failure", Message: " "rest-flunder-" is forbidden: not yet ready to handle request", Reason: "Forbidden", Details: { Name: "rest-flunder-", Group: "", Kind: "flunders", UID: "", Causes: nil, RetryAfterSeconds: 0, }, Code: 403, }, } "rest-flunder-" is forbidden: not yet ready to handle request not to have occurred
not sure if it's related, but I don't think the test currently gives sufficient permissions to the aggregated server to perform delegated authn/authz checks. we might want to look at merging
tried your fix, same result. The image of the sample-apiserver 1.9 based that I've created is uploaded to If someone want's to give it a try, simply by upgrading 1.0 to 1.1 here:
/assign Can you try to figure out why the test is failing w/ the new image?
/cc
Now waiting on
Is there an ETA on ? This test is flaking quite a bit offlate - https://k8s-
upgrades to 1.10. however it requires more rbac permissions than before which is not fully understood. We will either resolve the permission issue or leave it for later investigation. The upgrade to 1.10 should be merged in a couple of days, if not today.
what issue are you seeing? is relevant?
Yes, it is relevant. It does not fix the issue by itself though.
As for should be ready to be merged.
/reopen I would like some manual confirmation this has been addressed
Reopening this issue. <detailsIn response to : /reopen I would like some manual confirmation this has been addressed 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
after some in-depth investigations, it turns out the 1.10 sample-apiserver would need the following rbac permissions (in addition to the system:auth-delegator role). I'm updating the PR to add these. apiVersion: kind: ClusterRole metadata: name: sample-apiserver rules: apiGroups: resources: '*' verbs: list apiGroups: '' resources: namespaces verbs: list
This test is failing again, FYI: https://k8s-
Hi Josh, TL;DR: we are upgrading to 1.10 and that's what people is talking about in the previous comments.
/reopen I would like to see the test pass with the fix before closing this issue out. thanks
Reopening this issue. <detailsIn response to : /reopen 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
Hi please notice the test was renamed to: [sig-api-machinery] Aggregator Should be able to support the 1.10 Sample API Server using the current Aggregator, and has been passing since merged? https://k8s-
Ah cool thanks that explains it :) I was looking at in release-master-blocking and looks like it hasn't picked by the latest test since its 10/13 run. Closing this issue now based on the api-machinery dashboard now. Will reopen if the release job doesnt turn green the next run. Thanks much.
Is it worth removing the copy of this test that lives in ? Or is it still a release-blocking test?
I think the test will automatically pick the new version of the test in its next run (which should be sometime today, 10/20?). As to whether the test should be in the scale-correctness job , it is a ques for and