Skip to content

K8s: correct endpoints parsing#861

Closed
wanyunSu wants to merge 2 commits intodevelopfrom
wanyunSu/k8s-api-node
Closed

K8s: correct endpoints parsing#861
wanyunSu wants to merge 2 commits intodevelopfrom
wanyunSu/k8s-api-node

Conversation

@wanyunSu
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@wanyunSu wanyunSu commented Mar 25, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Description

Fixes issue #792 #859
When booting a K8s session, the status table now correctly shows the endpoints:

                                          claudia-test status                                           
┏━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┳━━━━━━┳━━━━━━━━━┳━━━━━━━━━━┳━━━━━━━━━━┳━━━━━━━━━━┳━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┓
┃ Name                   ┃ Info ┃ State   ┃ Substate ┃ In error ┃ Included ┃ Endpoint                  ┃
┡━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━╇━━━━━━╇━━━━━━━━━╇━━━━━━━━━━╇━━━━━━━━━━╇━━━━━━━━━━╇━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┩
│ root-controller        │      │ initial │ initial  │ No       │ Yes      │ grpc://np04-srv-021:32447 │
│   df-controller        │      │ initial │ initial  │ No       │ Yes      │ grpc://np04-srv-019:32833 │
│     df-01              │      │ initial │ idle     │ No       │ Yes      │ rest://np04-srv-019:53855 │
│     dfo-01             │      │ initial │ idle     │ No       │ Yes      │ rest://np04-srv-019:54887 │
│     tp-stream-writer   │      │ initial │ idle     │ No       │ Yes      │ rest://np04-srv-019:46357 │
│   hsi-fake-controller  │      │ initial │ initial  │ No       │ Yes      │ grpc://np04-srv-019:46783 │
│     hsi-fake-01        │      │ initial │ idle     │ No       │ Yes      │ rest://np04-srv-019:54305 │
│     hsi-fake-to-tc-app │      │ initial │ idle     │ No       │ Yes      │ rest://np04-srv-019:36325 │
│   ru-controller        │      │ initial │ initial  │ No       │ Yes      │ grpc://np04-srv-019:46235 │
│     ru-01              │      │ initial │ idle     │ No       │ Yes      │ rest://np04-srv-019:46611 │
│   trg-controller       │      │ initial │ initial  │ No       │ Yes      │ grpc://np04-srv-019:35371 │
│     mlt                │      │ initial │ idle     │ No       │ Yes      │ rest://np04-srv-019:45305 │
│     tc-maker-1         │      │ initial │ idle     │ No       │ Yes      │ rest://np04-srv-019:53921 │
└────────────────────────┴──────┴─────────┴──────────┴──────────┴──────────┴───────────────────────────┘

Type of change

  • New feature / enhancement
  • Optimization
  • Bug fix
  • Breaking change
  • Documentation

WHAT HAS CHANGED.

Now when running a k8s session, the hostnames are given by the k8s api call

Developer checklist

Prior to marking this as "Ready for Review"

Tests ran on: np04-srv-019 from NFD_DEV_260323_A9

Unit tests - some tests can't be ran on the CI. This is documented. If this PR checks a feature that can't be tested with CI, this has been marked appropriately.

Integration tests - the daqsystemtest_integtest_bundle requires a lot of resources, and connections to the EHN1 infrastructure. Check the cross referenced list if you can't run these. The developer needs to run at least the .

  • Unit tests (pytest --marker) passed
    • With relevant marker
    • Without marker
  • Integration tests passed
    • Only daqsystemtest_integtest_bundle.sh -k minimal_system_quick_test.py
    • Full daqsystemtest_integtest_bundle.sh
  • Testing skipped as there are no core code changes in this PR, this only relates to documentation/CI workflows

Final checklist prior to marking this as "Ready for Review"

  • Code is clearly commented.
  • New unit tests have been added, or is documented in # ISSUE NUMBER
  • A suitable reviewer has been chosen from this list.

Reviewer checklist
  • This branch has been rebased with develop prior to testing.
  • Suggested manual tests show changes.
  • CI workflows fails documented (if present)
  • Integration tests passed
    • Only concern yourself if failures related to drunc are in the log files
    • If non-drunc failure appears:
      • Validate failure in fresh working area
      • Contact Pawel if unsure

Once the features are validated and both the unit and integration tests pass, the PRs is ready to be merged.

Prior to merging

 Choose one of the following an complete all substeps
  • Changes only affect the Run Control, are in a single repository, and do not affect the end user.
    • Changes are documented in docstrings and code comments
    • Wiki has been updated if architectural or endpoint changes
  • Otherwise
    • Workflow changes demonstrated in the Change Log (if necessary)
    • Wiki has been updated (if necessary)
    • #daq-sw-librarians Slack channel notified (see below)

Once completed, the reviewer can merge the PR.

Notification message for #daq-sw-librarians Slack channel

For an single merge that changes the user workflow

The CCM WG has an isolated PR ready to merge that affects user workflows. The PR is:

_URL_

I will leave time for any comments, otherwise will merge these at the end of the work day _Insert your time zone_.

For co-ordinated merge

The CCM WG has a set of co-ordinated merges ready to merge. The PRs are:

_URL_

_URL_


I will leave time for any comments, otherwise will merge these at the end of the day.

@wanyunSu wanyunSu mentioned this pull request Mar 25, 2026
Closed
22 tasks
@wanyunSu wanyunSu self-assigned this Mar 25, 2026
@PawelPlesniak
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

PawelPlesniak commented Mar 26, 2026

Hi @wanyunSu, this PR has major issues. The largest one is the direct crossover of process management and controller code - we have discussed the isolation of the scope of these applications in the past, and this does reflect in the contents of this PR. While the functionality is present, the structure is blurring lines which have to be kept independent.

I would suggest re-writing this PR to reflect the structure of isolated process managment and controller content.

Prior to making further changes, you should have a well defined model of how the networking functions within the operational model, including when the process needs to advertise a NodePort or HostNetwork address to the connectivity service, how the commands are routed to the various applications, and where this is truly required vs when it is cosmetic.

@PawelPlesniak
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

PawelPlesniak commented Mar 26, 2026

Also, I would like to see the completed metadata for this PR, and the full integration test run, especially if not making changes to the k8s code.

@wanyunSu
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

wanyunSu commented Apr 15, 2026

Closing this PR for a newer implementation of the codes #879

@wanyunSu wanyunSu closed this Apr 15, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

@wanyunSu wanyunSu

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@wanyunSu @PawelPlesniak @dunedaqbot