search

openshift / external-dns-operator

The ExternalDNS Operator provides simplified ExternalDNS controller management.
Apache License 2.0
22 stars 33 forks source link

OCPBUGS-2793: deployment - remove unsolicited containers #188

Closed alebedev87 closed 1 year ago

alebedev87 commented 1 year ago

Previous PR for the same ticket introduced a new bug: unsolicited containers from the previous states of ExternalDNS CR are kept. The bug was caught by @lihongan and has this visible consequence when the zone ID (ExternalDNS.spec.zones) of an existing instance of ExternalDNS is changed.

Bad case scenario:

Impact:

Solution: At first the idea was to discard the containers from the previous state judging by their name (external-dns-<hash>). However the idea of being stricter until a real use case comes up dominated. So all the unsolicited containers are now removed from the managed deployment.

openshift-ci-robot commented 1 year ago

@alebedev87: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-2793, which is invalid:

Comment /jira refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Jira bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

In response to [this](https://github.com/openshift/external-dns-operator/pull/188): >The operator allows unsolicited containers. This results into the problem if the zone ID (`ExternalDNS.spec.zones`) of existing instance of ExternalDNS is changed. > >Bad case scenario: >- ExternalDNS CR has 1 zone ID specified: `x.y.z` >- Operator already spawned a deployment for this instance. This deployment has one single container of name `external-dns-` >- User changes the zone ID in ExternalDNS from `x.y.z` to `y.y.y` >- Operator reacts to the change and generates the desired state deployment with a single container named: `external-dns-` >- Since unsolicited containers are allowed the container named `external-dns-` from the current deployment is not removed > >Impact: >- Old container has a conflict on the metrics address: fails to bind on the same port >- User doesn't want to sync DNS records for the old zone anymore: the container should not be there > >Solution: >Don't consider the containers from the previous state as accepted unsolicited containers. A container is considered old if its name matches the pattern: `external-dns-`. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available [here](https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/guide/pull-requests.md). If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the [kubernetes/test-infra](https://github.com/kubernetes/test-infra/issues/new?title=Prow%20issue:) repository.
alebedev87 commented 1 year ago

/jira refresh

openshift-ci-robot commented 1 year ago

@alebedev87: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-2793, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug * bug is open, matching expected state (open) * bug target version (4.13.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.13.0) * bug is in the state ASSIGNED, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact: /cc @lihongan

In response to [this](https://github.com/openshift/external-dns-operator/pull/188#issuecomment-1338284718): >/jira refresh Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available [here](https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/guide/pull-requests.md). If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the [kubernetes/test-infra](https://github.com/kubernetes/test-infra/issues/new?title=Prow%20issue:) repository.
openshift-ci-robot commented 1 year ago

@alebedev87: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-2793, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug * bug is open, matching expected state (open) * bug target version (4.13.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.13.0) * bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact: /cc @lihongan

In response to [this](https://github.com/openshift/external-dns-operator/pull/188): >The operator allows unsolicited containers. This results into the problem if the zone ID (`ExternalDNS.spec.zones`) of existing instance of ExternalDNS is changed. > >**Bad case scenario**: >- ExternalDNS CR has 1 zone ID specified: `x.y.z` >- Operator already spawned a deployment for this instance. This deployment has one single container of name `external-dns-` >- User changes the zone ID in ExternalDNS from `x.y.z` to `y.y.y` >- Operator reacts to the change and generates the desired state deployment with a single container named: `external-dns-` >- Since unsolicited containers are allowed the container named `external-dns-` from the current deployment is not removed > >**Impact**: >- Old container has a conflict on the metrics address: fails to bind on the same port >- User doesn't want to sync DNS records for the old zone anymore: the container should not be there > >**Solution**: >Don't consider the containers from the previous state as accepted unsolicited containers. A container is considered old if its name matches the pattern: `external-dns-`. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available [here](https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/guide/pull-requests.md). If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the [kubernetes/test-infra](https://github.com/kubernetes/test-infra/issues/new?title=Prow%20issue:) repository.
openshift-ci-robot commented 1 year ago

@alebedev87: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-2793, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug * bug is open, matching expected state (open) * bug target version (4.13.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.13.0) * bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact: /cc @lihongan

In response to [this](https://github.com/openshift/external-dns-operator/pull/188): >The operator allows unsolicited containers. This results into the problem if the zone ID (`ExternalDNS.spec.zones`) of existing instance of ExternalDNS is changed. > >**Bad case scenario**: >- ExternalDNS CR has 1 zone ID specified: `x.y.z` >- Operator already spawned a deployment for this instance. This deployment has one single container of name `external-dns-` >- User changes the zone ID in ExternalDNS from `x.y.z` to `y.y.y` >- Operator reacts to the change and generates the desired state deployment with a single container named: `external-dns-` >- Since unsolicited containers are allowed the container named `external-dns-` from the current deployment is not removed > >**Impact**: >- Old container has a conflict on the metrics address: fails to bind on the same port >- User doesn't want to sync DNS records for the old zone anymore: the container should not be there > >**Solution**: >Don't consider the containers from the previous state as accepted unsolicited containers. A container is considered old if 1) its not expected (not from desired state), 2) its name matches the pattern: `external-dns-`. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available [here](https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/guide/pull-requests.md). If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the [kubernetes/test-infra](https://github.com/kubernetes/test-infra/issues/new?title=Prow%20issue:) repository.
openshift-ci-robot commented 1 year ago

@alebedev87: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-2793, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug * bug is open, matching expected state (open) * bug target version (4.13.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.13.0) * bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact: /cc @lihongan

In response to [this](https://github.com/openshift/external-dns-operator/pull/188): >The operator allows unsolicited containers. This results into the problem if the zone ID (`ExternalDNS.spec.zones`) of existing instance of ExternalDNS is changed. > >**Bad case scenario**: >- ExternalDNS CR has 1 zone ID specified: `x.y.z` >- Operator already spawned a deployment for this instance. This deployment has one single container of name `external-dns-` >- User changes the zone ID in ExternalDNS from `x.y.z` to `y.y.y` >- Operator reacts to the change and generates the desired state deployment with a single container named: `external-dns-` >- Since unsolicited containers are allowed the container named `external-dns-` from the current deployment is not removed > >**Impact**: >- Old container has a conflict on the metrics address: fails to bind on the same port >- User doesn't want to sync DNS records for the old zone anymore: the container should not be there > >**Solution**: >Don't consider the containers from the previous state as accepted unsolicited containers. A container is considered old if 1) it's unexpected (not from desired state), 2) its name matches the pattern: `external-dns-`. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available [here](https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/guide/pull-requests.md). If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the [kubernetes/test-infra](https://github.com/kubernetes/test-infra/issues/new?title=Prow%20issue:) repository.
openshift-ci-robot commented 1 year ago

@alebedev87: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-2793, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug * bug is open, matching expected state (open) * bug target version (4.13.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.13.0) * bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact: /cc @lihongan

In response to [this](https://github.com/openshift/external-dns-operator/pull/188): >The operator allows unsolicited containers. This results into the problem if the zone ID (`ExternalDNS.spec.zones`) of existing instance of ExternalDNS is changed. > >**Bad case scenario**: >- ExternalDNS CR has 1 zone ID specified: `x.y.z` >- Operator already spawned a deployment for this instance. This deployment has one single container of name `external-dns-` >- User changes the zone ID in ExternalDNS from `x.y.z` to `y.y.y` >- Operator reacts to the change and generates the desired state deployment with a single container named: `external-dns-` >- Since unsolicited containers are allowed the container named `external-dns-` from the current deployment is not removed > >**Impact**: >- Old container has a conflict on the metrics address: fails to bind on the same port >- User doesn't want to sync DNS records for the old zone anymore: the container should not be there > >**Solution**: >Don't consider the containers from the previous state as accepted unsolicited containers. >A container is considered old if 1) it's unexpected (not from desired state), 2) its name matches the pattern: `external-dns-`. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available [here](https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/guide/pull-requests.md). If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the [kubernetes/test-infra](https://github.com/kubernetes/test-infra/issues/new?title=Prow%20issue:) repository.
alebedev87 commented 1 year ago

/retest

GCP install failed: Cluster operator authentication Degraded is True with OAuthServerRouteEndpointAccessibleController_SyncError.

openshift-ci-robot commented 1 year ago

@alebedev87: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-2793, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug * bug is open, matching expected state (open) * bug target version (4.13.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.13.0) * bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact: /cc @lihongan

In response to [this](https://github.com/openshift/external-dns-operator/pull/188): >[Previous PR](https://github.com/openshift/external-dns-operator/pull/176) for the same ticket introduced a new bug: unsolicited containers from the previous states of ExternalDNS CR are kept. The bug was caught by @lihongan and has [this visible consequence](https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-2793?focusedCommentId=21361960&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-21361960) when the zone ID (`ExternalDNS.spec.zones`) of an existing instance of ExternalDNS is changed. > >**Bad case scenario**: >- ExternalDNS CR has 1 zone ID specified: `x.y.z` >- Operator already spawned a deployment for this instance. This deployment has one single container of name `external-dns-` >- User changes the zone ID in ExternalDNS from `x.y.z` to `y.y.y` >- Operator reacts to the change and generates the desired state deployment with a single container named: `external-dns-` >- Since unsolicited containers are allowed the container named `external-dns-` from the current deployment is not removed > >**Impact**: >- Old container has a conflict on the metrics address: fails to bind on the same port >- User doesn't want to sync DNS records for the old zone anymore: the container should not be there > >**Solution**: >Don't consider the containers from the previous state as accepted unsolicited containers. >A container is considered old if 1) it's unexpected (not from desired state), 2) its name matches the pattern: `external-dns-`. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available [here](https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/guide/pull-requests.md). If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the [kubernetes/test-infra](https://github.com/kubernetes/test-infra/issues/new?title=Prow%20issue:) repository.
openshift-ci-robot commented 1 year ago

@alebedev87: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-2793, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug * bug is open, matching expected state (open) * bug target version (4.13.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.13.0) * bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact: /cc @lihongan

In response to [this](https://github.com/openshift/external-dns-operator/pull/188): >[Previous PR](https://github.com/openshift/external-dns-operator/pull/176) for the same ticket introduced a new bug: unsolicited containers from the previous states of ExternalDNS CR are kept. The bug was caught by @lihongan and has [this visible consequence](https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-2793?focusedCommentId=21361960&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-21361960) when the zone ID (`ExternalDNS.spec.zones`) of an existing instance of ExternalDNS is changed. > >**Bad case scenario**: >- ExternalDNS CR has 1 zone ID specified: `x.y.z` >- Operator already spawned a deployment for this instance. This deployment has one single container of name `external-dns-` (note that for each zone ID specified we create a dedicated container in the deployment) >- User changes the zone ID in ExternalDNS from `x.y.z` to `y.y.y` >- Operator reacts to the change and generates the desired state deployment with a single container named: `external-dns-` >- Since unsolicited containers are allowed the container named `external-dns-` from the current deployment is not removed > >**Impact**: >- Old container has a conflict on the metrics address: fails to bind on the same port >- User doesn't want to sync DNS records for the old zone anymore: the container should not be there > >**Solution**: >Don't consider the containers from the previous state as accepted unsolicited containers. >A container is considered old if 1) it's unexpected (not from desired state), 2) its name matches the pattern: `external-dns-`. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available [here](https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/guide/pull-requests.md). If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the [kubernetes/test-infra](https://github.com/kubernetes/test-infra/issues/new?title=Prow%20issue:) repository.
openshift-ci-robot commented 1 year ago

@alebedev87: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-2793, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug * bug is open, matching expected state (open) * bug target version (4.13.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.13.0) * bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact: /cc @lihongan

In response to [this](https://github.com/openshift/external-dns-operator/pull/188): >[Previous PR](https://github.com/openshift/external-dns-operator/pull/176) for the same ticket introduced a new bug: unsolicited containers from the previous states of ExternalDNS CR are kept. The bug was caught by @lihongan and has [this visible consequence](https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-2793?focusedCommentId=21361960&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-21361960) when the zone ID (`ExternalDNS.spec.zones`) of an existing instance of ExternalDNS is changed. > >**Bad case scenario**: >- ExternalDNS CR has 1 zone ID specified: `x.y.z` >- Operator already spawned a deployment for this instance. This deployment has one single container of name `external-dns-` (note that for each zone ID specified the operator creates a dedicated container in the deployment) >- User changes the zone ID in ExternalDNS from `x.y.z` to `y.y.y` >- Operator reacts to the change and generates the desired state deployment with a single container named: `external-dns-` >- Since unsolicited containers are allowed the container named `external-dns-` from the current deployment is not removed > >**Impact**: >- Old container has a conflict on the metrics address: fails to bind on the same port >- User doesn't want to sync DNS records for the old zone anymore: the container should not be there > >**Solution**: >Don't consider the containers from the previous state as accepted unsolicited containers. >A container is considered old if 1) it's unexpected (not from desired state), 2) its name matches the pattern: `external-dns-`. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available [here](https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/guide/pull-requests.md). If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the [kubernetes/test-infra](https://github.com/kubernetes/test-infra/issues/new?title=Prow%20issue:) repository.
lihongan commented 1 year ago

/label qe-approved

xenolinux commented 1 year ago

/label docs-approved

openshift-ci-robot commented 1 year ago

@alebedev87: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-2793, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug * bug is open, matching expected state (open) * bug target version (4.13.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.13.0) * bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact: /cc @lihongan

In response to [this](https://github.com/openshift/external-dns-operator/pull/188): >[Previous PR](https://github.com/openshift/external-dns-operator/pull/176) for the same ticket introduced a new bug: unsolicited containers from the previous states of ExternalDNS CR are kept. The bug was caught by @lihongan and has [this visible consequence](https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-2793?focusedCommentId=21361960&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-21361960) when the zone ID (`ExternalDNS.spec.zones`) of an existing instance of ExternalDNS is changed. > >**Bad case scenario**: >- ExternalDNS CR has 1 zone ID specified: `x.y.z` >- Operator already spawned a deployment for this instance. This deployment has one single container named `external-dns-` (note that for each zone ID specified the operator creates a dedicated container in the deployment) >- User changes the zone ID in ExternalDNS from `x.y.z` to `y.y.y` >- Operator reacts to the change and generates the desired state deployment with a single container named: `external-dns-` >- Since unsolicited containers are allowed the container named `external-dns-` from the current deployment is not removed > >**Impact**: >- Old container has a conflict on the metrics address: fails to bind on the same port >- User doesn't want to sync DNS records for the old zone anymore: the container should not be there > >**Solution**: >Don't consider the containers from the previous state as accepted unsolicited containers. >A container is considered old if 1) it's unexpected (not from desired state), 2) its name matches the pattern: `external-dns-`. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available [here](https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/guide/pull-requests.md). If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the [kubernetes/test-infra](https://github.com/kubernetes/test-infra/issues/new?title=Prow%20issue:) repository.
openshift-ci-robot commented 1 year ago

@alebedev87: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-2793, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug * bug is open, matching expected state (open) * bug target version (4.13.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.13.0) * bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact: /cc @lihongan

The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

In response to [this](https://github.com/openshift/external-dns-operator/pull/188): >[Previous PR](https://github.com/openshift/external-dns-operator/pull/176) for the same ticket introduced a new bug: unsolicited containers from the previous states of ExternalDNS CR are kept. The bug was caught by @lihongan and has [this visible consequence](https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-2793?focusedCommentId=21361960&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-21361960) when the zone ID (`ExternalDNS.spec.zones`) of an existing instance of ExternalDNS is changed. > >**Bad case scenario**: >- ExternalDNS CR has 1 zone ID specified: `x.y.z` >- Operator already spawned a deployment for this instance. This deployment has one single container named `external-dns-` (note that for each zone ID specified the operator creates a dedicated container in the deployment) >- User changes the zone ID in ExternalDNS from `x.y.z` to `y.y.y` >- Operator reacts to the change and generates the desired state deployment with a single container named: `external-dns-` >- Since unsolicited containers are allowed the container named `external-dns-` from the current deployment is not removed > >**Impact**: >- Old container has a conflict on the metrics address: fails to bind on the same port >- User doesn't want to sync DNS records for the old zone anymore: the container should not be there > >**Solution**: >At first the idea was to discard the containers from the previous state judging by their name (`external-dns-`). However the idea of being stricter until a real use case comes up dominated. So all the unsolicited containers are now removed from the managed deployment. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available [here](https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/guide/pull-requests.md). If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the [kubernetes/test-infra](https://github.com/kubernetes/test-infra/issues/new?title=Prow%20issue:) repository.
alebedev87 commented 1 year ago

GCP installation failure.

/retest

Miciah commented 1 year ago

Lovely jubbly! /approve /lgtm

openshift-ci[bot] commented 1 year ago

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: alebedev87, Miciah

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: - ~~[OWNERS](https://github.com/openshift/external-dns-operator/blob/main/OWNERS)~~ [Miciah,alebedev87] Approvers can indicate their approval by writing `/approve` in a comment Approvers can cancel approval by writing `/approve cancel` in a comment
Miciah commented 1 year ago

e2e-infoblox-operator failed because the cluster had no worker nodes. In the machine-api-controllers pod logs, I see the following being logged repeatedly:

E1208 21:51:02.230090       1 controller.go:297] ci-op-4zky13qb-74059-5q55r-worker-a-w6tkj: failed to check if machine exists: ci-op-4zky13qb-74059-5q55r-worker-a-w6tkj: failed to create scope for machine: error getting credentials secret "gcp-cloud-credentials" in namespace "openshift-machine-api": Secret "gcp-cloud-credentials" not found

In credentialsrequests.json, I found the following:

                        "message": "failed to grant creds: error syncing creds in mint-mode: error creating custom role: rpc error: code = ResourceExhausted desc = Maximum number of roles reached. Maximum is: 300\nerror details: retry in 24h0m1s",

e2e-gcp-operator failed, evidently for the same reason—I see the same error in credentialsrequests.json for e2e-gcp-operator as well.

alebedev87 commented 1 year ago

/retest

openshift-ci-robot commented 1 year ago

/retest-required

Remaining retests: 0 against base HEAD fd1d055f84381bd12b431c071a3255c935fdbfe3 and 2 for PR HEAD 5f39ac435c26ddc2dc13ff27747ba2a8acb692a7 in total

alebedev87 commented 1 year ago

/retest

openshift-ci[bot] commented 1 year ago

@alebedev87: all tests passed!

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available [here](https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/guide/pull-requests.md). If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the [kubernetes/test-infra](https://github.com/kubernetes/test-infra/issues/new?title=Prow%20issue:) repository. I understand the commands that are listed [here](https://go.k8s.io/bot-commands).
openshift-ci-robot commented 1 year ago

@alebedev87: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged:

Jira Issue OCPBUGS-2793 has been moved to the MODIFIED state.

In response to [this](https://github.com/openshift/external-dns-operator/pull/188): >[Previous PR](https://github.com/openshift/external-dns-operator/pull/176) for the same ticket introduced a new bug: unsolicited containers from the previous states of ExternalDNS CR are kept. The bug was caught by @lihongan and has [this visible consequence](https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-2793?focusedCommentId=21361960&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-21361960) when the zone ID (`ExternalDNS.spec.zones`) of an existing instance of ExternalDNS is changed. > >**Bad case scenario**: >- ExternalDNS CR has 1 zone ID specified: `x.y.z` >- Operator already spawned a deployment for this instance. This deployment has one single container named `external-dns-` (note that for each zone ID specified the operator creates a dedicated container in the deployment) >- User changes the zone ID in ExternalDNS from `x.y.z` to `y.y.y` >- Operator reacts to the change and generates the desired state deployment with a single container named: `external-dns-` >- Since unsolicited containers are allowed the container named `external-dns-` from the current deployment is not removed > >**Impact**: >- Old container has a conflict on the metrics address: fails to bind on the same port >- User doesn't want to sync DNS records for the old zone anymore: the container should not be there > >**Solution**: >At first the idea was to discard the containers from the previous state judging by their name (`external-dns-`). However the idea of being stricter until a real use case comes up dominated. So all the unsolicited containers are now removed from the managed deployment. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available [here](https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/guide/pull-requests.md). If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the [kubernetes/test-infra](https://github.com/kubernetes/test-infra/issues/new?title=Prow%20issue:) repository.