Fix configuration timeout defaulting by skonto · Pull Request #15617 · knative/serving

skonto · 2024-11-15T11:02:56Z

Proposed Changes

As per title. We inject the right context for revision config to be properly updated with the latest values.
This affects revision-response-start-timeout-seconds, revision-idle-timeout-seconds, so that when they are equal to the revision-timeout-seconds in the defaults cm, they will not be set to 300 (default) at a revision that has no overrides of those values. Instead they are set to nil at the revision (0 at the QP side). Semantically this is correct, since when the timeouts are equal we don't need both anyway.

Release Note

Fixes revision timeout defaulting when identical values are present in timeout settings.

codecov · 2024-11-15T11:07:45Z

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 80.83%. Comparing base (b1e9a0c) to head (e644df4).
Report is 13 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #15617      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   80.83%   80.83%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         222      222              
  Lines       18035    18070      +35     
==========================================
+ Hits        14578    14606      +28     
- Misses       3087     3092       +5     
- Partials      370      372       +2

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

skonto · 2024-12-16T09:28:52Z

@dprotaso gentle ping.

n3wscott · 2025-01-11T21:59:12Z

pkg/apis/serving/v1/configuration_defaults_test.go

+					Name: config.DefaultsConfigName,
+				},
+				Data: map[string]string{
+					"revision-timeout-seconds":                "423",


Why was 423 chosen as the timeout value? Consider using a named constant or variable to make the
intent clear and maintain consistency across test files.

Just picked a number. I will update with a constant.

n3wscott · 2025-01-11T21:59:38Z

pkg/apis/serving/v1/configuration_defaults_test.go

+				},
+			},
+		},
+		ctx: func() context.Context {


The context setup logic is duplicated between configuration_defaults_test.go and
revision_defaults_test.go. Consider extracting this into a test helper function to improve
maintainability.

Actually they are using a different config store although the func seems similar, which makes things harder because configs are of different types and don't inherit similar methods. I will give it a shot.

skonto · 2025-01-14T10:05:16Z

cc @dprotaso

skonto · 2025-01-14T11:07:13Z

/retest

dprotaso · 2025-01-16T00:44:33Z

pkg/apis/serving/v1/configuration_defaults.go

+	configurationConfig := cconfig.FromContext(ctx)
+	apisConfig := config.Config{}
+	if configurationConfig != nil && configurationConfig.Defaults != nil {
+		apisConfig.Defaults = configurationConfig.Defaults.DeepCopy()
+	}
+	if configurationConfig != nil && configurationConfig.Features != nil {
+		apisConfig.Features = configurationConfig.Features.DeepCopy()
+	}
+	ctx = config.ToContext(ctx, &apisConfig)
+


configurationConfig := cconfig.FromContext(ctx)

This will always be nil - the webhook has a config map watcher that updates the api's config store.

I think we need a different fix - but I haven't dug into why the default of 300 is being applied - when in fact the default is here and it should be using what's in the config map

serving/pkg/apis/config/defaults.go

Lines 140 to 146 in c3f2bfe

nc.RevisionResponseStartTimeoutSeconds = nc.RevisionTimeoutSeconds

if err := cm.Parse(data,

cm.AsInt64("revision-response-start-timeout-seconds", &nc.RevisionResponseStartTimeoutSeconds),

); err != nil {

return nil, err

}

I think this has only been an issue because before when we default we set all the properties - but this one setting is different

The fix should be to add the apiconfig.Store into the context using the same key that's in the apiconfig package

eg. here

serving/pkg/reconciler/revision/config/store.go

Line 89 in c3f2bfe

func (s *Store) ToContext(ctx context.Context) context.Context {

we should call

serving/pkg/apis/config/store.go

Line 69 in c3f2bfe

func ToContext(ctx context.Context, c *Config) context.Context {

Other stores in reconciler could have similar issues

@dprotaso have you checked the description of the root cause here: #15616?

Ok I will fix.

skonto · 2025-01-20T12:43:09Z

pkg/apis/serving/v1/configuration_defaults_test.go

 			},
 		},
+	}, {
+		name: "run latest with identical timeout defaults",


This test exposes the issue.

dprotaso · 2025-01-21T14:58:03Z

pkg/apis/serving/v1/revision_defaults_test.go

-			s.OnConfigChanged(&corev1.ConfigMap{ObjectMeta: metav1.ObjectMeta{Name: autoscalerconfig.ConfigName}})
-			s.OnConfigChanged(&corev1.ConfigMap{ObjectMeta: metav1.ObjectMeta{Name: config.FeaturesConfigName}})
-			s.OnConfigChanged(&corev1.ConfigMap{
+		wc: defaultRevisionContextWithStore(logger, nil, corev1.ConfigMap{ObjectMeta: metav1.ObjectMeta{Name: autoscalerconfig.ConfigName}},


I'm having trouble reading the context now cause the helper has tons of args etc.

Can we do the following

In the context helper function initialize all the config maps we need defaults by invoking

s.OnConfigChanged(&corev1.ConfigMap{ObjectMeta: metav1.ObjectMeta{Name: autoscalerconfig.ConfigName}}) s.OnConfigChanged(&corev1.ConfigMap{ObjectMeta: metav1.ObjectMeta{Name: config.FeaturesConfigName}}) s.OnConfigChanged(&corev1.ConfigMap{ObjectMeta: metav1.ObjectMeta{Name: config.DefaultsConfigName}})

Pass in the override to this function and call onChanged for the changed configmaps

corev1.ConfigMap{ ObjectMeta: metav1.ObjectMeta{ Name: config.DefaultsConfigName, }, Data: map[string]string{ "revision-timeout-seconds": strconv.Itoa(someTimeoutSeconds), }, }

Don't take in an extra WithContext function just wrap the invocations

wc: apis.WithinCreate(defaultRevisionContextWithStore(...))

defaultRevisionContextWithStore - maybe call it configMapsToContext

dprotaso · 2025-01-21T16:08:34Z

/lgtm
/approve

knative-prow · 2025-01-21T16:08:45Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: dprotaso, skonto

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:

~~OWNERS~~ [dprotaso,skonto]
~~pkg/apis/OWNERS~~ [dprotaso]

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

dprotaso · 2025-01-21T16:15:33Z

/cherry-pick release-1.16

knative-prow-robot · 2025-01-21T16:15:36Z

@dprotaso: once the present PR merges, I will cherry-pick it on top of release-1.16 in a new PR and assign it to you.

Details

In response to this:

/cherry-pick release-1.16

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.

dprotaso · 2025-01-21T16:15:41Z

/cherry-pick release-1.15

knative-prow-robot · 2025-01-21T16:15:44Z

@dprotaso: once the present PR merges, I will cherry-pick it on top of release-1.15 in a new PR and assign it to you.

Details

In response to this:

/cherry-pick release-1.15

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.

knative-prow-robot · 2025-01-21T18:39:52Z

@dprotaso: new pull request created: #15721

Details

In response to this:

/cherry-pick release-1.16

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.

knative-prow-robot · 2025-01-21T18:40:30Z

@dprotaso: new pull request created: #15722

Details

In response to this:

/cherry-pick release-1.15

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.

knative-prow bot requested review from ReToCode and izabelacg November 15, 2024 11:03

knative-prow bot added the size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. label Nov 15, 2024

skonto requested review from dprotaso and removed request for izabelacg November 15, 2024 11:03

skonto assigned dprotaso and ReToCode Nov 15, 2024

skonto added this to the v1.17.0 milestone Nov 20, 2024

n3wscott reviewed Jan 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

skonto force-pushed the response_time_fix branch from 610bdc8 to 308d56c Compare January 14, 2025 10:02

dprotaso reviewed Jan 16, 2025

View reviewed changes

skonto added 4 commits January 20, 2025 14:15

Fix configuration defaulting

f707a17

address comments, refactoring

2bbcb45

refactor

c11b5c9

lint

5df6756

skonto force-pushed the response_time_fix branch from 308d56c to 5df6756 Compare January 20, 2025 12:28

fixes

ed1188b

skonto commented Jan 20, 2025

View reviewed changes

lint

be94fa3

dprotaso reviewed Jan 21, 2025

View reviewed changes

address comments

e644df4

knative-prow bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 21, 2025

knative-prow bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Jan 21, 2025

knative-prow bot merged commit 6265a8e into knative:main Jan 21, 2025
60 checks passed

knative-prow-robot mentioned this pull request Jan 21, 2025

[release-1.16] Fix configuration timeout defaulting #15721

Merged

knative-prow-robot mentioned this pull request Jan 21, 2025

[release-1.15] Fix configuration timeout defaulting #15722

Merged

skonto added the kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug. label Jan 22, 2025

dprotaso mentioned this pull request Apr 24, 2025

post install jobs fails with a validation error timeoutSeconds is greater than 600 #15814

Closed

	nc.RevisionResponseStartTimeoutSeconds = nc.RevisionTimeoutSeconds

	if err := cm.Parse(data,
	cm.AsInt64("revision-response-start-timeout-seconds", &nc.RevisionResponseStartTimeoutSeconds),
	); err != nil {
	return nil, err
	}

Conversation

skonto commented Nov 15, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Proposed Changes

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Nov 15, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

skonto commented Dec 16, 2024

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

skonto Jan 14, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

skonto commented Jan 14, 2025

Uh oh!

skonto commented Jan 14, 2025

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dprotaso Jan 16, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dprotaso Jan 16, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

skonto Jan 20, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dprotaso commented Jan 21, 2025

Uh oh!

knative-prow bot commented Jan 21, 2025

Uh oh!

dprotaso commented Jan 21, 2025

Uh oh!

knative-prow-robot commented Jan 21, 2025

Uh oh!

dprotaso commented Jan 21, 2025

Uh oh!

knative-prow-robot commented Jan 21, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

knative-prow-robot commented Jan 21, 2025

Uh oh!

knative-prow-robot commented Jan 21, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

skonto commented Nov 15, 2024 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Nov 15, 2024 •

edited

Loading

skonto Jan 14, 2025 •

edited

Loading

dprotaso Jan 16, 2025 •

edited

Loading

dprotaso Jan 16, 2025 •

edited

Loading

skonto Jan 20, 2025 •

edited

Loading