[release-4.13] OCPBUGS-8308: Bump to k8s 1.26.2 #1495
Conversation
…d-cherry-pick-of-#114940-upstream-release-1.26 Automated cherry pick of kubernetes#114940: Fixes the issue kubernetes#114145
api/v1.AddFlags only supports a pflag.FlagSet. The assumption was that code
which wants to use flag.FlagSet can use VisitAll to copy the flags. That works,
with one caveat: the flag.FlagSet help implementation will call String for the
zero value to determine whether the flag has a non-default value. This
currently leads to additional warnings at the end of the -help output:
panic calling String method on zero v1.verbosityLevelPflag for flag v: runtime error: invalid memory address or nil pointer dereference
panic calling String method on zero v1.vmoduleConfigurationPFlag for flag vmodule: runtime error: invalid memory address or nil pointer dereference
Supporting usage of methods with the zero value is good practice anyway and
thus gets added. This then avoids these panics.
Both pflag and standard FlagSet are covered.
A full string comparison might fail when the underlying libraries change how they format the help text. A regex match is less strict, but still makes some assumptions about the implementation.
The test was meant to fail when there are unexpected additional lines like the "panic calling String method" messages. But `assert.Regexp` does a search for the regexp, not a full string match, and thus succeeded even if those lines are present. A full match needs to be requested explicitly with ^ and $.
…ck-of-#115129-upstream-release-1.26 Automated cherry pick of kubernetes#115129: bump honnef.co/go/tools to support go1.20
probe util dial set linger to 1s
Change-Id: I323b472606eaf3242b665022afe2a79ecf3b8358
The ClusterIP allocator tries to reserve on part of the ServiceCIDR to allocate static IPs to the Services. The heuristic of the allocator to obtain the offset was taking into account the whole range size, not the IPs available in the range, the subnet address and the broadcast address for IPv4 are not available. This caused that for CIDRs with 16 hosts, /28 for IPv4 and /124 for IPv6, the offset calculated was higher than the max number of available addresses on the allocator, causing this to panic. Change-Id: I6c6f527b0a600b3612be37769e405b8fb3dd33a8
Signed-off-by: Amir Alavi <[email protected]>
Change-Id: I1e49943531b569b5e02f82369750a9ca899ae726
…-of-#115322-upstream-release-1.26 Automated cherry pick of kubernetes#115322: Fix panic on ClusterIP allocation for /28 subnets
…k-of-#115056-upstream-release-1.26 Automated cherry pick of kubernetes#115056: PodGC should not add DisruptionTarget condition for pods
…herry-pick-of-#115143-upstream-release-1.26 Automated cherry pick of kubernetes#115143: add custom dialer optimized for probes
…tent This fixes the following warning (error?) in the apiserver: E0126 18:10:38.665239 16370 fieldmanager.go:210] "[SHOULD NOT HAPPEN] failed to update managedFields" err="failed to convert new object (test/claim-84; resource.k8s.io/v1alpha1, Kind=ResourceClaim) to smd typed: .status.reservedFor: element 0: associative list without keys has an element that's a map type" VersionKind="/, Kind=" namespace="test" name="claim-84" The root cause is the same as in e50e8a0: nothing in Kubernetes outright complains about a list of items where the item type is comparable in Go, but not a simple type. This nonetheless isn't supposed to be done in the API and can causes problems elsewhere. For the ReservedFor field, everything seems to work okay except for the warning. However, it's better to follow conventions and use a map. This is possible in this case because UID is guaranteed to be a unique key. Validation is now stricter than before, which is a good thing: previously, two entries with the same UID were allowed as long as some other field was different, which wasn't a situation that should have been allowed.
…ck-of-#115382-upstream-release-1.26 Automated cherry pick of kubernetes#115382: Avoid typechecking stdlib
Signed-off-by: ruiwen-zhao <[email protected]>
sanchezl
changed the title
|
@sanchezl: No Bugzilla bug is referenced in the title of this pull request. Retaining the bugzilla/valid-bug label as it was manually added. In response to this:
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. |
|
/override ci/prow/verify-commits |
|
@soltysh: Overrode contexts on behalf of soltysh: ci/prow/verify-commits In response to this:
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. |
|
/remove-label backports/unvalidated-commits |
openshift-ci
bot
added
backports/validated-commits
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
backport-risk-assessed
openshift-ci
bot
assigned duanwei33, gangwgr, kasturinarra, sunilcio, wangke19, xingxingxia, zhouying7780 and soltysh
openshift-ci
bot
added
lgtm
|
/lgtm |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: sanchezl, soltysh, tkashem 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:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
/label cherry-pick-approved |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
cherry-pick-approved
|
/override ci/prow/verify-commits |
|
@soltysh: Overrode contexts on behalf of soltysh: ci/prow/verify-commits In response to this:
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. |
|
@sanchezl: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged: Jira Issue OCPBUGS-8308 has been moved to the MODIFIED state. In response to this:
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. |
|
@sanchezl: The following test failed, say
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. 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. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
What type of PR is this?
What this PR does / why we need it:
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?
Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.: