add AWS VPC and EKS reference resources for Karpenter

[lpm0073]

For issue #7: refactor the new infra-example folder into infra-examples, and add Terraform modules for AWS reference resources.

Adds generic AWS Virtual Private Cloud and Elastic Kubernetes Service modules, both of which are preconfigured as necessary to support use of Karpenter for node auto-scaling and pod bin packing.

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @lpm0073! Please note that it may take us up to several weeks or months to complete a review and merge your PR.

Feel free to add as much of the following information to the ticket as you can:

• supporting documentation
• Open edX discussion forum threads
• timeline information ("this must be merged by XX date", and why that is)
• partner information ("this is a course on edx.org")
• any other information that can help Product understand the context for the PR

All technical communication about the code itself will be done via the GitHub pull request interface. As a reminder, our process documentation is here.

Please let us know once your PR is ready for our review and all tests are green.

[bradenmacdonald]

@gabor-boros @jfavellar90 please review once it's ready for review.

[e0d]

@lpm0073 can you amend the commit messages to follow our conventional commit standard? https://open-edx-proposals.readthedocs.io/en/latest/best-practices/oep-0051-bp-conventional-commits.html#type

[itsjeyd]

@lpm0073 Thank you for your contribution!

In addition to changing the commit messages as @e0d mentioned above, it would be great if you could bring your branch up-to-date with the main branch.

Once that's done this PR will be ready for engineering review.

[itsjeyd]

Hey @lpm0073, a friendly reminder to follow up on the comments above.

[gabor-boros]

@bradenmacdonald If I understand correctly, I would need to be a core contributor to review this, which would require a 20h commitment , that I have concerns with from Serenity point of view at the moment. Ref: https://github.com/openedx/openedx-k8s-harmony/issues/25#issuecomment-1477716458

[bradenmacdonald]

@lpm0073 said on today's call that he is still finding a way to refactor this, to improve the design/code.

[antoviaque]

@gabor-boros +1 to what @bradenmacdonald said - you don't need to be a core contributor to do the review. Could you schedule the review when it's ready?

[gabor-boros]

@antoviaque @bradenmacdonald Cool! Whenever @lpm0073 says it is ready, I'll schedule a review for it.

[lpm0073]

The code itself is final. I was unsatisfied with alternative approaches for various reasons. @e0d asked me to modify the commit comments so that these conform to a tCRIL standard. This is still pending. I'll take care of this later today.

[itsjeyd]

Hey @lpm0073, it looks like this PR will need a rebase. Once that's done and the commit linter check passes we'll line it up for engineering review.

[itsjeyd]

Hi @lpm0073, just checking in to see if you're still planning to work on this PR?

[lpm0073]

Yes, of course, but what's pending?

On Wed, May 31, 2023, 2:02 AM Tim Krones @.***> wrote:

Hi @lpm0073 https://github.com/lpm0073, just checking in to see if you're still planning to work on this PR?

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openedx/openedx-k8s-harmony/pull/24#issuecomment-1569691339, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAI7ZQ2CEFRSDTR46JJ7GFLXI33LFANCNFSM6AAAAAAVRDFSK4 . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[itsjeyd]

@lpm0073 It looks like there's three things to follow up on:

• Comments from @gabor-boros's review
• Updating commit messages to match Conventional Commits standards.
• Resolving merge conflicts.

Once that's done we can line this up for another review pass.

[lpm0073]

got it, thanks @itsjeyd. I hope to be able to take care of all three later today.

[lpm0073]

@lpm0073 can you amend the commit messages to follow our conventional commit standard? https://open-edx-proposals.readthedocs.io/en/latest/best-practices/oep-0051-bp-conventional-commits.html#type

editing these now.

[lpm0073]

@lpm0073 It looks like there's three things to follow up on:

• Comments from @gabor-boros's review
• Updating commit messages to match Conventional Commits standards.
• Resolving merge conflicts.

Once that's done we can line this up for another review pass.

these are done.

[itsjeyd]

Thanks for the updates @lpm0073!

It looks like latest master was updated with one or more additional changes that are conflicting/overlapping with the changes from this PR.

@gabor-boros To keep things efficient, could we schedule your next review pass for a certain date? That way @lpm0073 would only need to resolve the remaining conflicts one more time (= right before you take another look at the changes).

[lpm0073]

Thanks, that would be ideal.

[gabor-boros]

@itsjeyd Sure! I'm going to review this today to speed things up!

[lpm0073]

merge conflicts are resolved. Please merge this PR at your earliest convenience.

[gabor-boros]

@lpm0073 Thanks for resolving! I'm going to take the chance to setup a test cluster and merge the MR 😇

[lpm0073]

My commit message is improperly formatted 🤦

[gabor-boros]

I guess "feat: implement Karpenter example" would be a good squash commit message that should pass the test too

[lpm0073]

yes, perfect :)

[lpm0073]

this seems kind of unfair. this is a commit that trickled in from the rebase i did last night.

[gabor-boros]

Eh, kind of rewording solves the issue, but indeed unfair. I ran out of time today, but will take care of this this week 😇

[bradenmacdonald]

@gabor-boros friendly reminder to fix the commit msgs and merge this PR for @lpm0073 please :)

[jfavellar90]

@bradenmacdonald @lpm0073 could we just merge https://github.com/openedx/openedx-k8s-harmony/pull/40 before this one? Once https://github.com/openedx/openedx-k8s-harmony/pull/40 is merged, I will rebase and apply some changes to this PR in order to create a new Harmony chart release. I can fix the commit lint issue as well

[bradenmacdonald]

@jfavellar90 That's fine with me. Thanks for volunteering to do the rebase!

[itsjeyd]

Hey @lpm0073 @jfavellar90, now that #40 has been merged and #41 is up, I'm closing this as a duplicate. Let me know if that's not what you had in mind.

[openedx-webhooks]

@lpm0073 Even though your pull request wasn’t merged, please take a moment to answer a two question survey so we can improve your experience in the future.