Skip to content

OCPCLOUD-3094: Merge https://github.com/kubernetes/cloud-provider-gcp:master (2e53900) into main#93

Merged
openshift-merge-bot[bot] merged 35 commits intoopenshift:mainfrom
theobarberbany:tb/rebase-1.34
Nov 10, 2025
Merged

OCPCLOUD-3094: Merge https://github.com/kubernetes/cloud-provider-gcp:master (2e53900) into main#93
openshift-merge-bot[bot] merged 35 commits intoopenshift:mainfrom
theobarberbany:tb/rebase-1.34

Conversation

@theobarberbany
Copy link

Manual rebase to fix conflicts with e4f8177

justinsb and others added 30 commits July 25, 2025 10:57
This is checked in newer versions of go
The `GetLoadBalancer` function returns `found=true` with an empty status if the underlying forwarding rule is deleted but the Service object still contains a finalizer (`ILBFinalizerV1` or `NetLBFinalizerV1`). This indicates to the controller that resource cleanup is still in progress.

This commit updates `TestGetLoadBalancer` to verify this behavior. After the load balancer is deleted, the test now adds a finalizer to the service and asserts that `GetLoadBalancer` correctly returns `found=true`.
The `GetLoadBalancer` function returns `found=true` with an empty status if the underlying forwarding rule is deleted but the Service object still contains a finalizer (`ILBFinalizerV1` or `NetLBFinalizerV1`). This indicates to the controller that resource cleanup is still in progress.

This commit updates `TestGetLoadBalancer` to verify this behavior. After the load balancer is deleted, the test now adds a finalizer to the service and asserts that `GetLoadBalancer` correctly returns `found=true`.
…balancer

Update TestGetLoadBalancer with finalizer check
example - go test -count=1 -race -v $(go list ./...)
Adding SyncMutex as unit tests is failing when detecting race
TestGetLoadBalancer improvement: finalizer check logic in GetLoadBalancer
…rovider_tests

tests: fix linting problem
…1-33-4

go.mod: Update k8s replace dependencies to 1.33.4
…lag to the CCM binary. (kubernetes#843)

When enabled, NetLB controller will consider RBS the default implementation for L4 NetLBs without a LoadBalancerClass specified, and it will not provision the service.
This commit updates all k8s.io dependencies to version v0.34.0. This also updates the vendor directory and regenerates the Bazel BUILD files.
This commit updates the cluster provisioning scripts located in the /cluster directory to match the state of the upstream kubernetes/kubernetes repository at version v1.34.0.
Add enableMultiNetworking flag and clarify the multi-networking judgement logic
Copy source code files from k8s.io/cloud-provider/tree/master/controllers/service
Repo: https://github.com/kubernetes/cloud-provider/tree/master/controllers/service
Paths: //pkg/controller/service
Commit Hash: e890f14
Copy Service controller from kubernetes/cloud-provider/controllers/service/
Add logic to handle services which specify CCM loadBalancerClass
`networking.gke.io/l4-regional-external-legacy` and
`networking.gke.io/l4-regional-internal-legacy`.

Existing controller will still handle services without a
LoadBalancerClass, gkeService (forked) will only process services which
specify one of the above LoadBalancerClass.
Followup: improve comment clarity for multi-NIC use cases
…ntroller

Move over Service controller - handle CCM LoadBalancerClass
This change addresses an issue where the `lastTransitionTime` field in the `LoadBalancerPortsError` condition was null. This would happen when a service was created with mixed protocols (e.g., TCP and UDP), which is not supported by the L4 regional external and internal load balancers.

According to the Kubernetes API specification, `lastTransitionTime` is a
required field.
…condition-fix

Populate lastTransitionTime for LoadBalancerPortsError
This adds the .spec required for building auth-provider-gcp as an RPM

To keep naming consistent across credential provider specs, we use the
name gcr-credential-provider

It also includes build-rpms.sh, used to build the RPM in CI.
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Nov 6, 2025
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot removed the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Nov 6, 2025
@theobarberbany
Copy link
Author

/verify-owners

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot removed the do-not-merge/invalid-owners-file Indicates that a PR should not merge because it has an invalid OWNERS file in it. label Nov 6, 2025
@chrischdi
Copy link

/retest
/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Nov 6, 2025
@theobarberbany
Copy link
Author

sigh CI is flakey / broken at the moment. We had all tests green pre OWNERS update

/retest

@theobarberbany
Copy link
Author

/hold

we want to see if we can get kubernetes#911 merged

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Nov 7, 2025
@damdo
Copy link
Member

damdo commented Nov 7, 2025

@theobarberbany I'd say let's merge this anyway and get kubernetes#911 as soon as we get it in a follow up

@nrb
Copy link

nrb commented Nov 7, 2025

/approve

@openshift-ci
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Nov 7, 2025

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: nrb

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

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Nov 7, 2025
@damdo
Copy link
Member

damdo commented Nov 8, 2025

/retest

@damdo
Copy link
Member

damdo commented Nov 8, 2025

/label rebase/manual

To avoid this getting force pushed by the rebasebot, given we've already approved it

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the rebase/manual Indicates the PR should not be rebased by the rebasebot. label Nov 8, 2025
@openshift-ci
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Nov 8, 2025

@theobarberbany: all tests passed!

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

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-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

@sunzhaohua2
Copy link

/verified by @sunzhaohua2
regression job passed.

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the verified Signifies that the PR passed pre-merge verification criteria label Nov 10, 2025
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@sunzhaohua2: This PR has been marked as verified by @sunzhaohua2.

Details

In response to this:

/verified by @sunzhaohua2
regression job passed.

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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

@sunzhaohua2
Copy link

/unhold

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Nov 10, 2025
@openshift-merge-bot openshift-merge-bot bot merged commit e9159d6 into openshift:main Nov 10, 2025
12 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. jira/valid-reference Indicates that this PR references a valid Jira ticket of any type. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. rebase/manual Indicates the PR should not be rebased by the rebasebot. verified Signifies that the PR passed pre-merge verification criteria

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.