Add gc for error instance's port

[Bo0km4n]

What this PR does / why we need it:
When failed to create instance with error state in OpenStack, currently DeleteInstance logic didn't delete port of the error instance.
Because, error instance's port detached from the instance by OpenStack.

If a port of error instance is still living until deleting managed security group, deleting a security group fails because the port is not deleted and is still associated with the security group.
As a result, OpenStackCluster deletion reconcile loop stuck.

To resolve above problem, I added logic of deleting port of error instance.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):
Fixes #976

Special notes for your reviewer:

1. Please confirm that if this PR changes any image versions, then that's the sole change this PR makes.

TODOs:

• squashed commits
• if necessary:
  • includes documentation
  • adds unit tests

/hold

[k8s-ci-robot]

Welcome @Bo0km4n!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api-provider-openstack 🎉. 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-sigs/cluster-api-provider-openstack 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]

Hi @Bo0km4n. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs 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/test-infra repository.

[jichenjc]

/ok-to-test

[jichenjc]

yes, this is a valid fix , I suggest you create an issue so that we can track the fix ,appreciate the report and fix

[Bo0km4n]

@jichenjc Thanks, I created an issue about this problem #976

[jichenjc]

code logic is reasonable to me

[jichenjc]

/approve

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: Bo0km4n, jichenjc

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

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [jichenjc]

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

[tobiasgiese]

Even if we only support a single port per instance I would suggest to loop over the portList and delete all ports. It does not hurt and it feels more stable.
WDYT?
cc @jichenjc

[tobiasgiese]

Also we don't have to check for if len(portList) < 1 in this case

[Bo0km4n]

Thanks @tobiasgiese, I agree it and modify code to loop through portList and delete each port.

[Bo0km4n]

I fixed it. What about it ? @tobiasgiese

[tobiasgiese]

Perfect, thanks :)

Please squash your commits. Then I will give my lgtm

[Bo0km4n]

Ok, I squashed.

[tobiasgiese]

/retest

[tobiasgiese]

/lgtm
Thanks 👍🏻

[tobiasgiese]

/hold cancel