System Test, RDS Core: metalLB traffic segregation test suite was added #392
Conversation
elenagerman
force-pushed
the
metallb-segregation-ver
branch
from
2c2a2bd to
d420990
Compare
elenagerman
force-pushed
the
metallb-segregation-ver
branch
6 times, most recently
from
f072214 to
e230adf
Compare
|
@yprokule PTAL |
elenagerman
force-pushed
the
metallb-segregation-ver
branch
from
c764ac0 to
e0a8667
Compare
|
|
||
| glog.V(100).Infof("Setting Replicas count") | ||
|
|
||
| replicasCnt := len(scheduleOnHosts) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd rather expose replica count as a parameter to cover a use case where a pod(s) can ran on multiple nodes but different amount of replicas is required (for e.g. a pod could run on node-x, node-y, node-z, but app requires only 2 instances).
Anyway that's only a suggestion so leaving it up to U
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure it's a good idea. different nodes/pods count is not exactly our case.
Also, the question is, why provide more nodes than you need pods?
In our case, for both tcpdump and traceroute scenarios, we provide precisely the nodes list where we need to deploy the support tools pods; I mean, we need to monitor a specific node => we need a pod on this node.
I would leave it like this right now if you don't mind.
If we have any future use cases with different requirements, we can modify it. But without a specific proposal for different nodes and pod counts, it's hard to understand how it would be better to change it.
| Skip("One of the capture interfaces not specified or are empty") | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| By("Ensure LB application deployment created for the first bgp route") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: BGP is abbreviation so should user uppercase
| By("Ensure LB application deployment created for the first bgp route") | |
| By("Ensure LB application deployment created for the first BGP route") |
| glog.V(rdscoreparams.RDSCoreLogLevel).Infof("Searching for pods in %q namespace", | ||
| RDSCoreConfig.MetalLBLoadBalancerOneNamespace) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| glog.V(rdscoreparams.RDSCoreLogLevel).Infof("Searching for pods in %q namespace", | |
| RDSCoreConfig.MetalLBLoadBalancerOneNamespace) | |
| glog.V(rdscoreparams.RDSCoreLogLevel).Infof("Searching for pods in %q namespace with label %q", | |
| RDSCoreConfig.MetalLBLoadBalancerOneNamespace, lbDeploymentLabel) |
|
|
||
| glog.V(rdscoreparams.RDSCoreLogLevel).Infof("Getting node name for the loadbalancer one application") | ||
|
|
||
| lbOneNodeName = lbOnePodsList[0].Object.Spec.NodeName |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
if application expects only 1 pod - I suggest adding extra check that there's exactly one pod running
| glog.V(rdscoreparams.RDSCoreLogLevel).Infof("Searching for pods in %q namespace", | ||
| RDSCoreConfig.MetalLBLoadBalancerTwoNamespace) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| glog.V(rdscoreparams.RDSCoreLogLevel).Infof("Searching for pods in %q namespace", | |
| RDSCoreConfig.MetalLBLoadBalancerTwoNamespace) | |
| glog.V(rdscoreparams.RDSCoreLogLevel).Infof("Searching for pods in %q namespace with label %q", | |
| RDSCoreConfig.MetalLBLoadBalancerTwoNamespace, lbDeploymentLabel) |
|
|
||
| glog.V(rdscoreparams.RDSCoreLogLevel).Infof("Getting node name for the loadbalancer two application") | ||
|
|
||
| lbTwoNodeName = lbTwoPodsList[0].Object.Spec.NodeName |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ditto, if only 1 pod expected - then worth checking only 1 pod exists
| captureScript, | ||
| []string{lbOneNodeName}) | ||
| Expect(err).ToNot(HaveOccurred(), | ||
| fmt.Sprintf("Failed to create supporttools deployment for the node %v in namespace %s from image %s: %v", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| fmt.Sprintf("Failed to create supporttools deployment for the node %v in namespace %s from image %s: %v", | |
| fmt.Sprintf("Failed to create tcpdump deployment for the node %v in namespace %s from image %s: %v", |
| Expect(len(stPodsList)).ToNot(Equal(0), "No tcpdump pods found in namespace %s", | ||
| stNamespace) | ||
|
|
||
| glog.V(rdscoreparams.RDSCoreLogLevel).Infof("Found %d 'traceRoute' pods", len(stPodsList)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| glog.V(rdscoreparams.RDSCoreLogLevel).Infof("Found %d 'traceRoute' pods", len(stPodsList)) | |
| glog.V(rdscoreparams.RDSCoreLogLevel).Infof("Found %d 'tcpdump' pods", len(stPodsList)) |
| By("Check the traffic flows for the first FRR through the expected interface") | ||
|
|
||
| for _, _pod := range stPodsList { | ||
| searchString := "10.18.126.21" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this probably should be parameterized
| for _, _pod := range stPodsList { | ||
| searchString := "10.18.126.21" | ||
|
|
||
| glog.V(rdscoreparams.RDSCoreLogLevel).Infof("Making sure that the traffic flows for the first FRR "+ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
shouldn't it be from
| glog.V(rdscoreparams.RDSCoreLogLevel).Infof("Making sure that the traffic flows for the first FRR "+ | |
| glog.V(rdscoreparams.RDSCoreLogLevel).Infof("Making sure that the traffic flows from the first FRR "+ |
| captureScript, | ||
| []string{lbTwoNodeName}) | ||
| Expect(err).ToNot(HaveOccurred(), | ||
| fmt.Sprintf("Failed to create supporttools deployment for the node %v in namespace %s from image %s: %v", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| fmt.Sprintf("Failed to create supporttools deployment for the node %v in namespace %s from image %s: %v", | |
| fmt.Sprintf("Failed to create tcpdump deployment for the node %v in namespace %s from image %s: %v", |
| Expect(len(stPodsList)).ToNot(Equal(0), "No tcpdump pods found in namespace %s", | ||
| stNamespace) | ||
|
|
||
| glog.V(rdscoreparams.RDSCoreLogLevel).Infof("Found %d 'traceRoute' pods", len(stPodsList)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| glog.V(rdscoreparams.RDSCoreLogLevel).Infof("Found %d 'traceRoute' pods", len(stPodsList)) | |
| glog.V(rdscoreparams.RDSCoreLogLevel).Infof("Found %d 'tcpdump' pods", len(stPodsList)) |
| By("Check the traffic flows for the second FRR through the expected interface") | ||
|
|
||
| for _, _pod := range stPodsList { | ||
| searchString := "10.18.124.21" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ditto, isn't this environment specific?
| for _, _pod := range stPodsList { | ||
| searchString := "10.18.124.21" | ||
|
|
||
| glog.V(rdscoreparams.RDSCoreLogLevel).Infof("Making sure that the traffic flows for the second FRR "+ |
| Skip("One of the capture interfaces not specified or are empty") | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| By("Ensure LB application deployment created for the first bgp route") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| By("Ensure LB application deployment created for the first bgp route") | |
| By("Ensure LB application deployment created for the first BGP route") |
| Skip("FRR One Load Balance app not found deployed") | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| glog.V(rdscoreparams.RDSCoreLogLevel).Infof("Getting node name for the loadbalancer one application") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
where's the code to get the node name? assume smth like:
lbOneNodeName = lbOnePodsList[0].Object.Spec.NodeName
| glog.V(rdscoreparams.RDSCoreLogLevel).Infof("Searching for pods in %q namespace", | ||
| RDSCoreConfig.MetalLBLoadBalancerTwoNamespace) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| glog.V(rdscoreparams.RDSCoreLogLevel).Infof("Searching for pods in %q namespace", | |
| RDSCoreConfig.MetalLBLoadBalancerTwoNamespace) | |
| glog.V(rdscoreparams.RDSCoreLogLevel).Infof("Searching for pods in %q namespace with %q label", | |
| RDSCoreConfig.MetalLBLoadBalancerTwoNamespace, lbDeploymentLabel) |
|
|
||
| glog.V(rdscoreparams.RDSCoreLogLevel).Infof("Getting node name for the loadbalancer two application") | ||
|
|
||
| lbTwoNodeName = lbTwoPodsList[0].Object.Spec.NodeName |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ditto, what happens if 2 pods found? is it safe to ignore all other pods and always use 1st one?
| glog.V(100).Infof(fmt.Sprintf("the IP routes %s were found on the FRR container %s: %s", | ||
| lbIP, containerName, result)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the command is show ip(v6) route bgp so not sure why it's stated that route for requested IP address was present in the output of the aforementioned command:
| glog.V(100).Infof(fmt.Sprintf("the IP routes %s were found on the FRR container %s: %s", | |
| lbIP, containerName, result)) | |
| glog.V(100).Infof(fmt.Sprintf("BGP routes were found in the FRR container %s\n: %s", | |
| containerName, result)) |
| }) | ||
|
|
||
| if err != nil { | ||
| glog.V(100).Infof("Failed to verify IP route bgp on the FRR container %s: %v", containerName, err) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| glog.V(100).Infof("Failed to verify IP route bgp on the FRR container %s: %v", containerName, err) | |
| glog.V(100).Infof("Failed to verify BGP routes in the FRR container %s: %v", containerName, err) |
| if err != nil { | ||
| glog.V(100).Infof("Failed to verify IP route bgp on the FRR container %s: %v", containerName, err) | ||
|
|
||
| return fmt.Errorf("failed to verify IP route bgp on the FRR container %s: %w", containerName, err) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| return fmt.Errorf("failed to verify IP route bgp on the FRR container %s: %w", containerName, err) | |
| return fmt.Errorf("failed to verify BGP routes in the FRR container %s: %w", containerName, err) |
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if !strings.Contains(result, lbIP) { | ||
| glog.V(100).Infof("No IP route bgp %s on the FRR container %s was found", lbIP, containerName) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| glog.V(100).Infof("No IP route bgp %s on the FRR container %s was found", lbIP, containerName) | |
| glog.V(100).Infof("No BGP route %s in the FRR container %s was found", lbIP, containerName) |
| if !strings.Contains(result, lbIP) { | ||
| glog.V(100).Infof("No IP route bgp %s on the FRR container %s was found", lbIP, containerName) | ||
|
|
||
| return fmt.Errorf("no IP route bgp %s on the FRR container %s was found", lbIP, containerName) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| return fmt.Errorf("no IP route bgp %s on the FRR container %s was found", lbIP, containerName) | |
| return fmt.Errorf("no BGP route %s in the FRR container %s was found", lbIP, containerName) |
| time.Second*3, | ||
| true, | ||
| func(ctx context.Context) (bool, error) { | ||
| for i := 0; i < 3; i++ { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the function is already retried so why this extra for loop?
No description provided.