profile
viewpoint
If you are wondering where the data of this site comes from, please visit https://api.github.com/users/brendandburns/events. GitMemory does not store any data, but only uses NGINX to cache data for a period of time. The idea behind GitMemory is simply to give users a better reading experience.

Azure/bicep 1044

Bicep is a declarative language for describing and deploying Azure resources

brendandburns/cl-k8s 28

Common Lisp Client for Kubernetes

brendandburns/arduino-air-quality-exporter 14

An exporter from Arduino to prometheus for Air Quality metrics.

brendandburns/acs-ignite-demos 9

Demos for my sessions at ignite.

brendandburns/aci-bridge-k8s 7

Experimental ACI Bridge for Kubernetes

brendandburns/client-java 2

Java client library for Kubernetes

brendandburns/acs-build-demos 1

Demos for the ACS build session

brendandburns/arc-prometheus 1

arc-prometheus

brendandburns/c 1

Official C client library for kubernetes. Work In Progress

Pull request review commentkubernetes/kubernetes

migrate volume/csi/csi-client.go logs to structured logging

 func (c *csiDriverClient) NodeGetInfo(ctx context.Context) ( 	maxVolumePerNode int64, 	accessibleTopology map[string]string, 	err error) {-	klog.V(4).Info(log("calling NodeGetInfo rpc"))+	klog.V(4).InfoS(log("calling NodeGetInfo rpc"))

In my opinion, "kubernetes.io/csi" can be regarded as a label of the log, and there are too many callers, maybe we keep the status quo?

CKchen0726

comment created time in a few seconds

pull request commentkubernetes/kops

Fix no-schedule issue

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: <a href="https://github.com/kubernetes/kops/pull/10928#issuecomment-787019523" title="Approved">hakman</a>

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

The pull request process is described here

<details > 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 </details> <!-- META={"approvers":[]} -->

christian-schlichtherle

comment created time in a minute

pull request commentkubernetes/kops

Fix no-schedule issue

/lgtm /approve

christian-schlichtherle

comment created time in 2 minutes

pull request commentkubernetes/website

Update some translation in scheduling config page

Deploy preview for kubernetes-io-master-staging ready!

Built with commit 2c38402aed2801d5db4b24ff3d8477bb320506d8

https://deploy-preview-26744--kubernetes-io-master-staging.netlify.app

gaoguangze111

comment created time in 2 minutes

Pull request review commentkubernetes/kubernetes

Avoid creation of the same storageclass in e2e tests

 func (t StorageClassTest) TestDynamicProvisioning() *v1.PersistentVolume { 		} 	}() -	if class == nil {-		// StorageClass is nil, so the default one will be used-		scName, err := e2epv.GetDefaultStorageClassName(client)-		framework.ExpectNoError(err)-		defaultSC, err := client.StorageV1().StorageClasses().Get(context.TODO(), scName, metav1.GetOptions{})+	// ensure that the claim refers to the provisioned StorageClass+	framework.ExpectEqual(*claim.Spec.StorageClassName, class.Name)++	// if late binding is configured, create and delete a pod to provision the volume+	if *class.VolumeBindingMode == storagev1.VolumeBindingWaitForFirstConsumer {

I opted for adding support to create volumeDevices in the e2e pod creation method

mauriciopoppe

comment created time in 2 minutes

Pull request review commentkubernetes/kops

Fix no-schedule issue

 In order to match the kOps environment, create a `values.yaml` file with the fol operator:   nodeSelector:     kops.k8s.io/instancegroup: gpu-nodes+  tolerations:+    - key: nvidia.com/gpu+      operator: Exists

No offense taken, sorry you feel this way. Thank you for your contribution.

christian-schlichtherle

comment created time in 2 minutes

pull request commentkubernetes/kubernetes

Avoid creation of the same storageclass in e2e tests

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: <a href="https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/99346#" title="Author self-approved">mauriciopoppe</a>, <a href="https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/99346#issuecomment-786917289" title="Approved">msau42</a>

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

The pull request process is described here

<details > 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 </details> <!-- META={"approvers":[]} -->

mauriciopoppe

comment created time in 3 minutes

push eventAzure/azure-sdk-for-net

m-nash

commit sha 941df0c5a0819b9bf10731c11e08fc0328be4123

initial checkin for core / tests (#18968) * initial checkin for core / tests * Add readme.md file * Fix header in readme * remove autorest until we convert off hand written types * update azure.core reference remove sets to tags ignore tests which require credentials for now * Add the proto client which will be used until the autogen work is complete * Add missing readmes for proto client * update to require linq 4.0.0 so that don't have to upgrade bcl * add changlog for CI * change system.linq.async to update * update to use source vs binary for the temporary generation of Azure.ResourceManager.Authorization * Add changelog for azure.resourcemanager.authorization and update version to be beta * update typos in readme * update name of proto client sln * merge in changes from proto repo this week * fixed unit test failures missed a few files from the merge from proto repo updated compute and network sdk version to use latest azure.core with readonly list types * ignore tests which require live azure until 5122 is closed * Update failing scenario test

view details

push time in 8 minutes

PR merged Azure/azure-sdk-for-net

Reviewers
initial checkin for core / tests

All SDK Contribution checklist:

This checklist is used to make sure that common guidelines for a pull request are followed.

  • [x] Please open PR in Draft mode if it is:
    • Work in progress or not intended to be merged.
    • Encountering multiple pipeline failures and working on fixes.
  • [x] If an SDK is being regenerated based on a new swagger spec, a link to the pull request containing these swagger spec changes has been included above.
  • [x] I have read the contribution guidelines.
  • [x] The pull request does not introduce breaking changes.

General Guidelines and Best Practices

  • [x] Title of the pull request is clear and informative.
  • [x] There are a small number of commits, each of which have an informative message. This means that previously merged commits do not appear in the history of the PR. For more information on cleaning up the commits in your PR, see this page.

Testing Guidelines

  • [x] Pull request includes test coverage for the included changes.

SDK Generation Guidelines

  • [x] The generate.cmd file for the SDK has been updated with the version of AutoRest, as well as the commitid of your swagger spec or link to the swagger spec, used to generate the code. (Track 2 only)
  • [x] The *.csproj and AssemblyInfo.cs files have been updated with the new version of the SDK. Please double check nuget.org current release version.

Additional management plane SDK specific contribution checklist:

Note: Only applies to Microsoft.Azure.Management.[RP] or Azure.ResourceManager.[RP]

  • [ ] Include updated management metadata.
  • [ ] Update AzureRP.props to add/remove version info to maintain up to date API versions.

Management plane SDK Troubleshooting

  • If this is very first SDK for a services and you are adding new service folders directly under /SDK, please add new service label and/or contact assigned reviewer.
  • If the check fails at the Verify Code Generation step, please ensure:
    • Do not modify any code in generated folders.
    • Do not selectively include/remove generated files in the PR.
    • Do use generate.ps1/cmd to generate this PR instead of calling autorest directly. Please pay attention to the @microsoft.csharp version output after running generate.ps1. If it is lower than current released version (2.3.82), please run it again as it should pull down the latest version,

Old outstanding PR cleanup

Please note: If PRs (including draft) has been out for more than 60 days and there are no responses from our query or followups, they will be closed to maintain a concise list for our reviewers.

+20443 -0

6 comments

230 changed files

m-nash

pr closed time in 8 minutes

pull request commentkubernetes/website

Update some translation in scheduling config page

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: To complete the pull request process, please assign chenrui333 after the PR has been reviewed. You can assign the PR to them by writing /assign @chenrui333 in a comment when ready.

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

<details open> 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 </details> <!-- META={"approvers":["chenrui333"]} -->

gaoguangze111

comment created time in 11 minutes

PR opened kubernetes/website

Update some translation in scheduling config page

Update some translations in page scheduling config.

Page updated: https://kubernetes.io/zh/docs/reference/scheduling/config/#scheduling-plugins

+53 -53

0 comment

1 changed file

pr created time in 12 minutes

issue commentAzure/AKS

control-plane label on admission webhooks definitions

This issue will now be closed because it hasn't had any activity for 15 days after stale. dprotaso feel free to comment again on the next 7 days to reopen or open a new issue after that time if you still have a question/issue or suggestion.

dprotaso

comment created time in 18 minutes

issue closedAzure/AKS

control-plane label on admission webhooks definitions

Turns out Knative doesn't run on AKS 1.17 because there's some Azure component that's mutating our webhooks which we did not expect.

See https://github.com/knative/pkg/issues/1590 for details.

I read https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/aks/faq#can-i-use-admission-controller-webhooks-on-aks and I'm curious why the selector like

namespaceSelector:
    matchExpressions:
    - key: control-plane
      operator: DoesNotExist

is necessary when the question states https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/aks/faq#can-admission-controller-webhooks-impact-kube-system-and-internal-aks-namespaces

To protect the stability of the system and prevent custom admission controllers from impacting internal services in the kube-system, namespace AKS has an Admissions Enforcer, which automatically excludes kube-system and AKS internal namespaces. This service ensures the custom admission controllers don't affect the services running in kube-system.

Since there's an Admissions Enforcer preventing these kube-system and AKS namespaces modifications is it necessary to mutate our webhook definitions?

This behaviour could break other projects & products who don't expect these external mutations - ie. Tekton CD is broken as well

closed time in 18 minutes

dprotaso

pull request commentkubernetes/kubernetes

Upgrade kustomize-in-kubectl to kustomize@v4.0.2

@monopole: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests:

Test name Commit Details Rerun command
pull-kubernetes-e2e-azure-file-windows afcbc5ca7dc2976ba6479bf2804a69c5194b9ec2 link /test pull-kubernetes-e2e-azure-file-windows
pull-kubernetes-e2e-azure-disk-windows afcbc5ca7dc2976ba6479bf2804a69c5194b9ec2 link /test pull-kubernetes-e2e-azure-disk-windows
pull-kubernetes-e2e-kind 9e0c94856934de24aee393683cc693446634849e link /test pull-kubernetes-e2e-kind
pull-kubernetes-conformance-kind-ga-only-parallel 9e0c94856934de24aee393683cc693446634849e link /test pull-kubernetes-conformance-kind-ga-only-parallel
pull-kubernetes-e2e-kind-ipv6 9e0c94856934de24aee393683cc693446634849e link /test pull-kubernetes-e2e-kind-ipv6
pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-100-performance 9e0c94856934de24aee393683cc693446634849e link /test pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-100-performance
pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-ubuntu-containerd 9e0c94856934de24aee393683cc693446634849e link /test pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-ubuntu-containerd
pull-kubernetes-bazel-test 9e0c94856934de24aee393683cc693446634849e link /test pull-kubernetes-bazel-test
pull-kubernetes-verify 9e0c94856934de24aee393683cc693446634849e link /test pull-kubernetes-verify

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR.

<details>

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. </details> <!-- test report -->

monopole

comment created time in 19 minutes

pull request commentkubernetes-client/csharp

Fix ObjectDisposedException thrown when calling LoadAllFromFileAsync

I first hit the issue described in #570 using the currently released NuGet package and grabbed the latest code to see what the cause was. The master branch already included the change in #571 at this point. Instead of the file closed issue I started seeing the ObjectDisposedException due to the FileStream being closed. Hopefully, the additional coverage in the unit tests will help catch similar issues in the future.

alexmg

comment created time in 23 minutes

Pull request review commentkubernetes/kubernetes

Fix fs windows tests to pass on windows machine

 func TestDiskUsage(t *testing.T) { 	if err != nil { 		t.Fatalf("TestDiskUsage failed: %s", err.Error()) 	}-	if size.Cmp(used) != 1 {-		t.Fatalf("TestDiskUsage failed: %s", err.Error())+	if size.Cmp(used) != 0 {+		t.Fatalf("TestDiskUsage failed: expected 1, got %d", size.Cmp(used))

mismatch: expected 1 and size.Cmp(used) != 0

jsturtevant

comment created time in 23 minutes

Pull request review commentkubernetes/kubernetes

migrate volume/csi/csi-client.go logs to structured logging

 func (c *csiDriverClient) NodeGetVolumeStats(ctx context.Context, volID string, 			metrics.Inodes = resource.NewQuantity(usage.GetTotal(), resource.BinarySI) 			metrics.InodesUsed = resource.NewQuantity(usage.GetUsed(), resource.BinarySI) 		default:-			klog.Errorf("unknown key %s in usage", unit.String())+			klog.ErrorS(nil, "unknown key in usage", "unitKey", unit.String())

Your suggestion is better, I will update it.

CKchen0726

comment created time in 24 minutes

pull request commentkubernetes/kubernetes

typo fixed for terminatation

/triage accepted

lala123912

comment created time in 30 minutes

pull request commentkubernetes/kubernetes

Replace top-level ginkgo.Describe with SIGDescribe

/triage accepted

lala123912

comment created time in 31 minutes

pull request commentkubernetes/kubernetes

Avoid creation of the same storageclass in e2e tests

/assigne @jsafrane

mauriciopoppe

comment created time in 32 minutes

Pull request review commentkubernetes/kubernetes

Avoid creation of the same storageclass in e2e tests

 func (p *provisioningTestSuite) DefineTests(driver storageframework.TestDriver, 				myTestConfig := testConfig 				myTestConfig.Prefix = fmt.Sprintf("%s-%d", myTestConfig.Prefix, i) -				// Each go routine must have its own testCase copy to store their claim-				myTestCase := *l.testCase-				myTestCase.Claim = myTestCase.Claim.DeepCopy()-				myTestCase.Class = nil // Do not create/delete the storage class in TestDynamicProvisioning, it already exists.-				myTestCase.PvCheck = func(claim *v1.PersistentVolumeClaim) {+				t := *l.testCase+				t.PvCheck = func(claim *v1.PersistentVolumeClaim) {

why remove Claim.DeepCopy()?

mauriciopoppe

comment created time in 39 minutes

Pull request review commentkubernetes/kubernetes

Avoid creation of the same storageclass in e2e tests

 func (p *provisioningTestSuite) DefineTests(driver storageframework.TestDriver, 				myTestConfig := testConfig 				myTestConfig.Prefix = fmt.Sprintf("%s-%d", myTestConfig.Prefix, i) -				// Each go routine must have its own testCase copy to store their claim-				myTestCase := *l.testCase-				myTestCase.Claim = myTestCase.Claim.DeepCopy()-				myTestCase.Class = nil // Do not create/delete the storage class in TestDynamicProvisioning, it already exists.-				myTestCase.PvCheck = func(claim *v1.PersistentVolumeClaim) {+				t := *l.testCase+				t.PvCheck = func(claim *v1.PersistentVolumeClaim) {

Also I don't know why class was set to nil before. The author @jsafrane https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/commit/1f9f2390cb57832f5fbd02e53d39023b81500cc2 specifically made a comment about storageclass already exist? Is it trying to test default storage class behavior?

mauriciopoppe

comment created time in 33 minutes

pull request commentkubernetes/kubernetes

Upgrade kustomize-in-kubectl to kustomize@v4.0.2

@monopole: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests:

Test name Commit Details Rerun command
pull-kubernetes-e2e-azure-file-windows afcbc5ca7dc2976ba6479bf2804a69c5194b9ec2 link /test pull-kubernetes-e2e-azure-file-windows
pull-kubernetes-e2e-azure-disk-windows afcbc5ca7dc2976ba6479bf2804a69c5194b9ec2 link /test pull-kubernetes-e2e-azure-disk-windows
pull-kubernetes-e2e-kind 9e0c94856934de24aee393683cc693446634849e link /test pull-kubernetes-e2e-kind
pull-kubernetes-conformance-kind-ga-only-parallel 9e0c94856934de24aee393683cc693446634849e link /test pull-kubernetes-conformance-kind-ga-only-parallel
pull-kubernetes-e2e-kind-ipv6 9e0c94856934de24aee393683cc693446634849e link /test pull-kubernetes-e2e-kind-ipv6
pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-100-performance 9e0c94856934de24aee393683cc693446634849e link /test pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-100-performance
pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-ubuntu-containerd 9e0c94856934de24aee393683cc693446634849e link /test pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce-ubuntu-containerd
pull-kubernetes-bazel-test 9e0c94856934de24aee393683cc693446634849e link /test pull-kubernetes-bazel-test

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR.

<details>

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. </details> <!-- test report -->

monopole

comment created time in 33 minutes

pull request commentkubernetes/kubernetes

ContainerGC cleanup duplicated running containers

/assign @derekwaynecarr

chenyw1990

comment created time in 35 minutes

pull request commentkubernetes/kubernetes

Speed up pkg/volume/csi unit tests

@wzshiming: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests:

Test name Commit Details Rerun command
pull-kubernetes-e2e-kind-ipv6 bc3d9252bc46b6fa4e988527079b67db58f5af29 link /test pull-kubernetes-e2e-kind-ipv6

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR.

<details>

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. </details> <!-- test report -->

wzshiming

comment created time in 38 minutes

Pull request review commentkubernetes/kubernetes

Avoid creation of the same storageclass in e2e tests

 func (t StorageClassTest) TestDynamicProvisioning() *v1.PersistentVolume { 		} 	}() -	if class == nil {-		// StorageClass is nil, so the default one will be used-		scName, err := e2epv.GetDefaultStorageClassName(client)-		framework.ExpectNoError(err)-		defaultSC, err := client.StorageV1().StorageClasses().Get(context.TODO(), scName, metav1.GetOptions{})+	// ensure that the claim refers to the provisioned StorageClass+	framework.ExpectEqual(*claim.Spec.StorageClassName, class.Name)++	// if late binding is configured, create and delete a pod to provision the volume+	if *class.VolumeBindingMode == storagev1.VolumeBindingWaitForFirstConsumer {

@msau42 the conversation was dropped after I did the rebase fix, sorry about that.

After debugging the test I saw that the Pod created in this if statement was failing with the following error:

 Warning  FailedMount  7s    kubelet, e2e-test-mauriciopoppe-minion-group-pnq9  Unable to attach or mount volumes: unmounted volumes=[volume1], unattached volumes=[volume1 default-token-b9jmr[]: volume volume1 has volumeMode Block, but is specified in volumeMounts

After some debugging I found out that the test is failing because the claim dynamically provisions a PV with volumeMode = Block and this pod is created with volumeMounts instead of volumeDevices for all the cases, if the objective of this test is to also make it work with a BlockDevice then I can create either volumeMounts (the default) or volumeDevices inside e2e.CreatePod, we could also skip this test for block devices, what do you think?

mauriciopoppe

comment created time in 41 minutes

pull request commentkubernetes/kubernetes

Replace top-level ginkgo.Describe with SIGDescribe

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: <a href="https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/99524#" title="Author self-approved">lala123912</a>, <a href="https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/99524#pullrequestreview-600092979" title="LGTM">spiffxp</a>

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

The pull request process is described here

<details > 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 </details> <!-- META={"approvers":[]} -->

lala123912

comment created time in 42 minutes

pull request commentkubernetes/kubernetes

Replace top-level ginkgo.Describe with SIGDescribe

/ok-to-test

lala123912

comment created time in an hour

Pull request review commentAzure/AKS

add feb 14th-feb21st release notes

 # Azure Kubernetes Service Changelog +## Release 2021-02-22++This release is rolling out to all regions - ETA for conclusion 2021-03-03 for public cloud.++### Announcements++* The Azure Kubernetes Service [pod security policy (preview)](https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/aks/use-pod-security-policies) feature will be retired on June 30th, 2021.+* Once GA AKS will default to its new [GPU specialized image](https://aka.ms/aks/specialized-gpu-image) as the supported option for GPU-capable agent nodes.+* Starting this week on 22 February 2021 (Azure China Cloud and Azure Government Cloud users will get this update in the following weeks), we will upgrade AKS clusters Calico network policy from Calico version v3.8.9 to v3.17.2 for cluster 1.20.2 and above. This upgrade will cause a breaking change to the default behavior of all-interfaces Host Endpoints. For customers that use Host Endpoints, and only these, this version brings a change. Please follow our [guidance](https://github.com/Azure/AKS/issues/2089) to apply the appropriate label and Global Network Policy if you want to keep the v3.8.9 default behavior of all-interfaces Host Endpoints.+* Calico support in Windows is now supported as an add-on. To leverage this feature, AKS clusters will need to be on Kubernetes version 1.20 and above. Windows Calico support can only be enabled through cluster creation only. For more information, please see the [documentation](https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/aks/use-network-policies) on March 3rd 2021.  ++### Release Notes++* Features+  * Azure Application Gateway Ingress Controller add-on is now available in Government clouds.+* Component Updates+  * Calico updated to v3.17.2.+  * AKS Windows image has been updated to [2019-datacenter-core-smalldisk-17763.1697.210210](vhd-notes/AKSWindows/2019/17763.1697.210210.txt).+  * AKS Ubuntu 16.04 image updated to [AKSUbuntu-1604-2021.02.17](vhd-notes/aks-ubuntu/AKSUbuntu-1604/2021.02.17.txt).+  * AKS Ubuntu 18.04 image updated to [AKSUbuntu-1804-2021.02.17](vhd-notes/aks-ubuntu/AKSUbuntu-1804/2021.02.17.txt).+

Guess it didn't make the cut 😁

qpetraroia

comment created time in an hour

pull request commentkubernetes/kubernetes

Replace top-level ginkgo.Describe with SIGDescribe

@spiffxp

lala123912

comment created time in an hour