fix: ensure status updates are not skipped due to stale cache #7077

zhy76 · 2026-01-05T07:18:17Z

Fixes #6858
fix: ensure status updates are not skipped due to stale cache

What type of PR is this?

/kind bug

What this PR does / why we need it:

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #6858

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

`karmada-controller-manager`: Fixed the issue that AggregatedStatus in rb status may be skipped update due to stale cache

gemini-code-assist · 2026-01-05T07:18:33Z

Summary of Changes

Hello @zhy76, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request resolves a bug where status updates could be inadvertently skipped if the cached object appeared semantically identical to the new status, even when the underlying resource might be out of sync. By transitioning from a full update with an equality check to a direct patch operation, the system now guarantees that all status changes are propagated, effectively preventing inconsistencies caused by stale cache data and improving the reliability of status reporting.

Highlights

Fix for Stale Cache Issues: Status updates will no longer be skipped due to stale cache data, ensuring that the latest status is always applied, even if the content appears unchanged.
Changed Status Update Mechanism: The UpdateStatus function now utilizes client.Status().Patch with client.Merge instead of client.Status().Update, and the semantic deep equality check has been removed.
Enhanced Test Coverage: New test cases have been introduced and existing ones updated to validate the fix, specifically addressing scenarios where status updates might have been incorrectly skipped.

🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	`/gemini review`	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	`/gemini summary`	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	`/gemini help`	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

gemini-code-assist

Code Review

This pull request addresses an issue where status updates could be skipped due to a stale cache. The fix involves removing the equality check before a status update and instead always using a Patch operation. This ensures that status changes, even those that might appear as no-ops to a client with a stale cache (like LastTransitionTime updates), are correctly persisted. The implementation is sound, and the accompanying test changes are excellent, including a major refactoring for better test case generalization and a specific test to cover the bug fix. I have one suggestion to further improve the new test's verification logic.

gemini-code-assist · 2026-01-05T07:20:13Z

pkg/util/helper/status_test.go

+			verify: func(t *testing.T, c client.Client) {
+				work := &workv1alpha1.Work{}
+				assert.NoError(t, c.Get(context.TODO(), types.NamespacedName{Name: "test-work", Namespace: "default"}, work))
+
+				cond := meta.FindStatusCondition(work.Status.Conditions, workv1alpha1.WorkApplied)
+				assert.NotNil(t, cond)
+				assert.Equal(t, metav1.ConditionTrue, cond.Status)
+				assert.Equal(t, "AppliedSuccessful", cond.Reason)
+			},


The verification for this test case is good, but it could be made stronger. The test case update with same WorkApplied condition, should still update (issue #6858) is designed to ensure an update occurs even if only LastTransitionTime changes. The current verify function confirms the condition's Status and Reason, but doesn't check if LastTransitionTime was actually updated.

To make the test more robust and explicitly verify the intended behavior, you could add an assertion to check that LastTransitionTime has been updated to a recent time. Given the initial time is set to one hour in the past, checking that the new time is recent is a safe and effective way to confirm the update.

verify: func(t *testing.T, c client.Client) { work := &workv1alpha1.Work{} assert.NoError(t, c.Get(context.TODO(), types.NamespacedName{Name: "test-work", Namespace: "default"}, work)) cond := meta.FindStatusCondition(work.Status.Conditions, workv1alpha1.WorkApplied) assert.NotNil(t, cond) assert.Equal(t, metav1.ConditionTrue, cond.Status) assert.Equal(t, "AppliedSuccessful", cond.Reason) assert.True(t, time.Since(cond.LastTransitionTime.Time) < time.Minute, "LastTransitionTime should have been updated") },

The judgment of time differences is somewhat unreliable, and LastTransitionTime is not a key focus of testing. Therefore, it is not recommended to introduce this modification.

Thanks, removed LastTransitionTime.

codecov-commenter · 2026-01-05T15:32:30Z

⚠️ Please install the to ensure uploads and comments are reliably processed by Codecov.

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 46.54%. Comparing base (310dcff) to head (c4c2799).
⚠️ Report is 12 commits behind head on master.
❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #7077      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   46.56%   46.54%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         700      700              
  Lines       48089    48087       -2     
==========================================
- Hits        22391    22383       -8     
- Misses      24016    24021       +5     
- Partials     1682     1683       +1

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	`46.54% <100.00%> (-0.02%)`	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

XiShanYongYe-Chang · 2026-01-06T01:33:11Z

/retest

shentupenghui · 2026-01-06T03:39:01Z

lgtm

XiShanYongYe-Chang · 2026-01-06T07:13:07Z

Thanks~
/assign

XiShanYongYe-Chang

Thanks~
/lgtm
Ask @whitewindmills to help take a review.
cc @whitewindmills

XiShanYongYe-Chang · 2026-01-06T09:26:07Z

pkg/util/helper/status_test.go

+			verify: func(t *testing.T, c client.Client) {
+				work := &workv1alpha1.Work{}
+				assert.NoError(t, c.Get(context.TODO(), types.NamespacedName{Name: "test-work", Namespace: "default"}, work))
+
+				cond := meta.FindStatusCondition(work.Status.Conditions, workv1alpha1.WorkApplied)
+				assert.NotNil(t, cond)
+				assert.Equal(t, metav1.ConditionTrue, cond.Status)
+				assert.Equal(t, "AppliedSuccessful", cond.Reason)
+			},


The judgment of time differences is somewhat unreliable, and LastTransitionTime is not a key focus of testing. Therefore, it is not recommended to introduce this modification.

XiShanYongYe-Chang · 2026-01-06T09:27:21Z

Hi @zhy76, can you help add the release note?

Signed-off-by: 浩韵 <[email protected]>

karmada-bot · 2026-01-06T10:53:29Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please ask for approval from xishanyongye-chang. For more information see the Code Review Process.

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

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

pkg/controllers/OWNERS
pkg/util/OWNERS

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

zhy76 · 2026-01-06T10:53:44Z

Hi @zhy76, can you help add the release note?

Done

zhy76 · 2026-01-06T11:11:30Z

/retest

XiShanYongYe-Chang · 2026-01-07T02:12:58Z

/lgtm

whitewindmills · 2026-01-07T06:20:54Z

pkg/util/helper/status.go

+	// even if the content appears unchanged. This avoids issues where stale cache data might cause
+	// updates to be skipped incorrectly.
+	// FYI: https://github.com/karmada-io/karmada/issues/6858
+	if err := c.Status().Patch(ctx, obj, client.MergeFrom(oldObj)); err != nil {


@zhy76 thanks for your work, but I think theres‘s no different from the original. if the cached data is expired, I don't think client.MergeFrom(oldObj) can create a meaningful patch. maybe it looks like {}?
therefore, I mean we need to generate a hard-coded patch, or still use the Update method, which may encounter conflicts, but we can use the Retry framework to handle it.

I understand what you mean. The obj currently passed as input might be outdated, and using it to generate a patch is unreliable.

karmada-bot added kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug. do-not-merge/invalid-commit-message Indicates that a PR should not merge because it has an invalid commit message. labels Jan 5, 2026

karmada-bot requested review from XiShanYongYe-Chang and whitewindmills January 5, 2026 07:18

karmada-bot added the size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. label Jan 5, 2026

gemini-code-assist bot reviewed Jan 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

zhy76 force-pushed the fix/status branch from 137ea86 to 6f79aac Compare January 5, 2026 07:25

karmada-bot removed the do-not-merge/invalid-commit-message Indicates that a PR should not merge because it has an invalid commit message. label Jan 5, 2026

zhy76 force-pushed the fix/status branch 2 times, most recently from 24eed85 to 72cbbd4 Compare January 5, 2026 15:15

zhy76 force-pushed the fix/status branch from 72cbbd4 to 10ca89b Compare January 5, 2026 16:16

karmada-bot assigned XiShanYongYe-Chang Jan 6, 2026

XiShanYongYe-Chang reviewed Jan 6, 2026

View reviewed changes

karmada-bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 6, 2026

fix: ensure status updates are not skipped due to stale cache

c4c2799

Signed-off-by: 浩韵 <[email protected]>

zhy76 force-pushed the fix/status branch from 10ca89b to c4c2799 Compare January 6, 2026 10:53

karmada-bot removed the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 6, 2026

karmada-bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 7, 2026

whitewindmills reviewed Jan 7, 2026

View reviewed changes

fix: ensure status updates are not skipped due to stale cache #7077

Are you sure you want to change the base?

fix: ensure status updates are not skipped due to stale cache #7077

Conversation

zhy76 commented Jan 5, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot commented Jan 5, 2026

Summary of Changes

Highlights

Footnotes

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Code Review

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot Jan 5, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

XiShanYongYe-Chang Jan 6, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

zhy76 Jan 6, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

codecov-commenter commented Jan 5, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

XiShanYongYe-Chang commented Jan 6, 2026

Uh oh!

shentupenghui commented Jan 6, 2026

Uh oh!

XiShanYongYe-Chang commented Jan 6, 2026

Uh oh!

XiShanYongYe-Chang left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

XiShanYongYe-Chang Jan 6, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

XiShanYongYe-Chang commented Jan 6, 2026

Uh oh!

karmada-bot commented Jan 6, 2026

Uh oh!

zhy76 commented Jan 6, 2026

Uh oh!

zhy76 commented Jan 6, 2026

Uh oh!

XiShanYongYe-Chang commented Jan 7, 2026

Uh oh!

whitewindmills Jan 7, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

XiShanYongYe-Chang Jan 7, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

zhy76 commented Jan 5, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov-commenter commented Jan 5, 2026 •

edited

Loading