Open elmiko opened 4 days ago
cc @JoelSpeed @gcs278
one thing that came up in discussion internally was whether we missed an announcement or release note about this change in behavior. is this just an organic regression or did we miss something about it?
What happened:
When setting both
.spec.loadBalancerSourceRanges
and theservice.beta.kubernetes.io/load-balancer-source-ranges
annotation on a Service object, the CCM will not reconcile the Service nor will it allow for its deletion. The following error is present:What you expected to happen:
Expected the Service to continue to be reconciled even if one of the source ranges is ignored.
How to reproduce it (as minimally and precisely as possible):
Anything else we need to know?:
We (Red Hat) discovered this regression in our automated testing, and while the user behavior of setting both ranges may not be supported by the CCM, the error when reconciling makes it a possible upgrade blocker for users who may have (inadvertently or not) set both these range options.
There are 2 pull requests which appear to have combined to create this regression:
5164
5885
the effect of #5164 resulted in the following logic:
We do not have automation around the
service.beta.kubernetes.io/azure-allowed-ip-ranges
annotation, and as such we have not directly noticed this failure but we believe it exists.when combined with #5885, the resulting logic becomes:
Related report in Red Hat bug tracking OCPBUGS-35757.
Environment:
This was tested on the upcoming release of OpenShift which uses Kubernetes version 1.30 and RHCOS 9.4 instances.