Skip to content

Conversation

zac-nixon
Copy link
Collaborator

Issue

#4343

Description

The current check pointing logic returns old check point = new check point = "". This means, when clean up is invoked for a now existent service, the checkpoint doesn't get updated due to this check. This leads to the old checkpoint being persisted in the TGB, despite the target group being updated. In the users case, the endpoint composition didn't change therefore when the service backend was corrected our TGB handler didn't re-register the targets.

The fix is quite simple, instead of setting both checkpoints to empty, we return the oldCheckPoint as the actual checkpoint, and the new checkpoint as "". This was the checkpoint is properly updated and the handler will re-register the targets when the service is fixed.

Checklist

  • Added tests that cover your change (if possible)
  • Added/modified documentation as required (such as the README.md, or the docs directory)
  • Manually tested
  • Made sure the title of the PR is a good description that can go into the release notes

BONUS POINTS checklist: complete for good vibes and maybe prizes?! 🤯

  • Backfilled missing tests for code in same general area 🎉
  • Refactored something and made the world a better place 🌟

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: zac-nixon

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

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. label Sep 25, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Sep 25, 2025
@shuqz
Copy link
Collaborator

shuqz commented Sep 25, 2025

/approved

@shuqz
Copy link
Collaborator

shuqz commented Sep 25, 2025

/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Sep 25, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@zac-nixon: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name Commit Details Required Rerun command
pull-aws-load-balancer-controller-e2e-test 0a2b938 link true /test pull-aws-load-balancer-controller-e2e-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.

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.

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. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants