Skip to content

Increase timeout waitForCertificateRequestToExist #5485

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
Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Increase timeout waitForCertificateRequestToExist #5485

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

AcidLeroy
Copy link
Contributor

Pull Request Motivation

Although this may not be fixing the root cause of #4956, @munnerz identified this as a possible workaround until a more robust solution can be developed. Presently, the working theory is that the apiserver is not responding in the allotted time and thus a duplicate certificate request is created which clashes with the one that was initially created. Ideally, we would have a way to detect that there is already another certificate in flight before we attempt to create a new one.

Quoting @munnerz :

A short term and easy fix could be to increase the timeout from 5s to say, 60s.. this should only be relevant in edge cases anyway

More details about the discussion can be found on this slack thread

Signed-off-by: Cody W. Eilar ecody@vmware.com

Kind

/kind feature

Release Note

Increase the timeout to 60 seconds, from 5, for `waitForCertificateRequestToExist` to help prevent the error "multiple CertificateRequests were found for the 'next' revision..."

@AcidLeroy
Increase timeout waitForCertificateRequestToExist
5cacc04 
- We were finding that when the apiserver is slow to respond that we
  would sometimes receive the error: 'multiple CertificateRequests were found for the 'next' revision 1, issuance is skipped until there are
no more duplicates'. The hope is that by increasing the timeout here, we
are less likely to see this issue crop up.

Signed-off-by: Cody W. Eilar <ecody@vmware.com>
@jetstack-bot jetstack-bot added release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature. dco-signoff: yes Indicates that all commits in the pull request have the valid DCO sign-off message. labels Oct 5, 2022
@jetstack-bot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

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

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

@jetstack-bot jetstack-bot added the needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. label Oct 5, 2022
@jetstack-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @AcidLeroy. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a cert-manager 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.

@jetstack-bot jetstack-bot added the size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. label Oct 5, 2022
@AcidLeroy
Copy link
Contributor Author

/assign @munnerz

@sathyanarays sathyanarays mentioned this pull request Oct 6, 2022
Merged
@AcidLeroy
Copy link
Contributor Author

@irbekrm is this worth it or should we favor #5487 without this change to the timeout?

@irbekrm
Copy link
Contributor

irbekrm commented Oct 7, 2022

@AcidLeroy I think the new feature gate should be enough, especially given that we assume that this is an edge case.

Do you foresee any issues (i.e for enabling an alpha feature gate in your environments)?

@AcidLeroy
Copy link
Contributor Author

@irbekrm I don't see us having any problems with the feature gates. Our usage of cert-manager in our production systems is pretty basic, and I'm fairly certain no one is doing any fancy testing around generated certificate names. If they had, they probably would have found the duplicate certificate issue before I did. I left this open just in case there was any serious hesitation with making the certificate names predictable.

@AcidLeroy AcidLeroy closed this Oct 7, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees

@munnerz munnerz

Labels
dco-signoff: yes Indicates that all commits in the pull request have the valid DCO sign-off message. kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature. needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@AcidLeroy @jetstack-bot @irbekrm @munnerz