Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

fix(exoscale): enhance UX around SKS nodepools #7433

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

fix(exoscale): enhance UX around SKS nodepools #7433

wants to merge 1 commit into from
+79 −12

Conversation

nerzhul
Copy link

@nerzhul nerzhul commented Oct 25, 2024 •
edited
Loading

What type of PR is this?

/kind bug

What this PR does / why we need it:

Hello, i'm a exoscale team member. I'm not sure about the kind command as it's more a UX improvement for our end users

In the 1.31.0 and lower version SKS nodepools where discovered through exoscale instance pools. Whereas it works as expected, end user experience is not very convenient, especially when end users use priority based expander. On our portal SKS nodepools are shown with their ID and the instancepool is hidden in the SKS nodepool page itself. People trying to use priority based expander put SKS nodepool ID instead of our generic compute API InstancePool ID. For convenience, starting with this commit we are using SKS nodepool ID and we add retro compatibility for already cluster autoscaler managed SKS clusters. This will reduce a bit our support on it, and make priority based expander UX more convenient.

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

fix(exoscale): enhance UX around SKS nodepools and priority based expander

Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.:

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug. label Oct 25, 2024
@linux-foundation-easycla Linux Foundation: EasyCLA
Copy link

linux-foundation-easycla bot commented Oct 25, 2024 •
edited
Loading

CLA Signed

The committers listed above are authorized under a signed CLA.

  • ✅ login: nerzhul / name: Loïc Blot (e439dfb)

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the cncf-cla: no Indicates the PR's author has not signed the CNCF CLA. label Oct 25, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Welcome @nerzhul!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes/autoscaler 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes/autoscaler has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @nerzhul. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. label Oct 25, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. label Oct 25, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. and removed cncf-cla: no Indicates the PR's author has not signed the CNCF CLA. labels Oct 25, 2024
@nerzhul nerzhul marked this pull request as draft October 25, 2024 10:03
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Oct 25, 2024
@nerzhul
fix(exoscale): enhance UX around SKS nodepools
e439dfb 
In the 1.31.0 and lower version SKS nodepools where discovered through exoscale instance pools.
Whereas it works as expected, end user experience is not very convenient, especially when end users use priority based expander.
On our portal SKS nodepools are shown with their ID and the instancepool is hidden in the SKS nodepool page itself. People trying to
use priority based expander put SKS nodepool ID instead of our generic compute API InstancePool ID.
For convenience, starting with this commit we are using SKS nodepool ID and we add retro compatibility for already cluster autoscaler
managed SKS clusters. This will reduce a bit our support on it, and make priority based expander UX more convenient.
@nerzhul nerzhul marked this pull request as ready for review October 25, 2024 14:09
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Oct 25, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: nerzhul, PhilippeChepy
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign gjtempleton for approval. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@nerzhul
Copy link
Author

nerzhul commented Nov 4, 2024

/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@nerzhul: you cannot LGTM your own PR.

In response to this:

/lgtm

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

@PhilippeChepy
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@PhilippeChepy: changing LGTM is restricted to collaborators

In response to this:

/lgtm

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

@nerzhul
Copy link
Author

nerzhul commented Nov 4, 2024

@gjtempleton when you have time can you review this please ? :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@PhilippeChepy PhilippeChepy PhilippeChepy approved these changes

@aleksandra-malinowska aleksandra-malinowska Awaiting requested review from aleksandra-malinowska

@gjtempleton gjtempleton Awaiting requested review from gjtempleton

@vadasambar vadasambar Awaiting requested review from vadasambar

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
area/cluster-autoscaler cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug. needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@nerzhul @k8s-ci-robot @PhilippeChepy