I have a dedicated GitHub organization and a private repository to run this E2E test. After a few fixes included in this change, it has successfully passed.
This fixes the below error that occurs in `make release`:
```
kustomize build config/default > release/actions-runner-controller.yaml
Error: accumulating resources: accumulation err='accumulating resources from '../webhook': '/home/mumoshu/p/actions-runner-controller/config/webhook' must resolve to a file': recursed accumulation of path '/home/mumoshu/p/actions-runner-controller/config/webhook': accumulating resources: accumulation err='accumulating resources from 'manifests.v1beta1.yaml': evalsymlink failure on '/home/mumoshu/p/actions-runner-controller/config/webhook/manifests.v1beta1.yaml' : lstat /home/mumoshu/p/actions-runner-controller/config/webhook/manifests.v1beta1.yaml: no such file or directory': evalsymlink failure on '/home/mumoshu/p/actions-runner-controller/config/webhook/manifests.v1beta1.yaml' : lstat /home/mumoshu/p/actions-runner-controller/config/webhook/manifests.v1beta1.yaml: no such file or directory
make: *** [Makefile:156: release] Error 1
```
Ref #144
This fixes the below error on installing the chart:
```
Error: UPGRADE FAILED: error validating "": error validating data: [ValidationError(MutatingWebhookConfiguration.webhooks[0]): missing required field "admissionReviewVersions" in io.k8s.api.admissionregistration.v1.MutatingWebhook, ValidationError(MutatingWebhookConfiguration.webhooks[1]): missing required field "admissionReviewVersions" in io.k8s.api.admissionregistration.v1.MutatingWebhook, ValidationError(MutatingWebhookConfiguration.webhooks[2]): missing required field "admissionReviewVersions" in io.k8s.api.admissionregistration.v1.MutatingWebhook, ValidationError(MutatingWebhookConfiguration.webhooks[3]): missing required field "admissionReviewVersions" in io.k8s.api.admissionregistration.v1.MutatingWebhook]
```
Ref #144
This add support for two upcoming enhancements on the GitHub side of self-hosted runners, ephemeral runners, and `workflow_jow` events. You can't use these yet.
**These features are not yet generally available to all GitHub users**. Please take this pull request as a preparation to make it available to actions-runner-controller users as soon as possible after GitHub released the necessary features on their end.
**Ephemeral runners**:
The former, ephemeral runners, is basically the reliable alternative to `--once`, which we've been using when you enabled `ephemeral: true` (default in actions-runner-controller).
`--once` has been suffering from a race issue #466. `--ephemeral` fixes that.
To enable ephemeral runners with `actions/runner`, you give `--ephemeral` to `config.sh`. This updated version of `actions-runner-controller` does it for you, by using `--ephemeral` instead of `--once` when you set `RUNNER_FEATURE_FLAG_EPHEMERAL=true`.
Please read the section `Ephemeral Runners` in the updated version of our README for more information.
Note that ephemeral runners is not released on GitHub yet. And `RUNNER_FEATURE_FLAG_EPHEMERAL=true` won't work at all until the feature gets released on GitHub. Stay tuned for an announcement from GitHub!
**`workflow_job` events**:
`workflow_job` is the additional webhook event that corresponds to each GitHub Actions workflow job run. It provides `actions-runner-controller` a solid foundation to improve our webhook-based autoscale.
Formerly, we've been exploiting webhook events like `check_run` for autoscaling. However, as none of our supported events has included `labels`, you had to configure an HRA to only match relevant `check_run` events. It wasn't trivial.
In contrast, a `workflow_job` event payload contains `labels` of runners requested. `actions-runner-controller` is able to automatically decide which HRA to scale by filtering the corresponding RunnerDeployment by `labels` included in the webhook payload. So all you need to use webhook-based autoscale will be to enable `workflow_job` on GitHub and expose actions-runner-controller's webhook server to the internet.
Note that the current implementation of `workflow_job` support works in two ways, increment, and decrement. An increment happens when the webhook server receives` workflow_job` of `queued` status. A decrement happens when it receives `workflow_job` of `completed` status. The latter is used to make scaling-down faster so that you waste money less than before. You still don't suffer from flapping, as a scale-down is still subject to `scaleDownDelaySecondsAfterScaleOut `.
Please read the section `Example 3: Scale on each `workflow_job` event` in the updated version of our README for more information on its usage.
* Add POC of GitHub Webhook Delivery Forwarder
* multi-forwarder and ctrl-c existing and fix for non-woring http post
* Rename source files
* Extract signal handling into a dedicated source file
* Faster ctrl-c handling
* Enable automatic creation of repo hook on startup
* Add support for forwarding org hook deliveries
* Set hook secret on hook creation via envvar (HOOK_SECRET)
* Fix org hook support
* Fix HOOK_SECRET for consistency
* Refactor to prepare for custom log position provider
* Refactor to extract inmemory log position provider
* Add configmap-based log position provider
* Rename githubwebhookdeliveryforwarder to hookdeliveryforwarder
* Refactor to rename LogPositionProvider to Checkpointer and extract ConfigMap checkpointer into a dedicated pkg
* Refactor to extract logger initialization
* Add hookdeliveryforwarder README and bump go-github to unreleased ver
Previously the E2E test suite covered only RunnerSet. This refactors the existing E2E test code to extract the common test structure into a `env` struct and its methods, and use it to write two very similar tests, one for RunnerSet and another for RunnerDeployment.
Enhances out existing E2E test suite to additionally support triggering two or more concurrent workflow jobs and verifying all the results, so that you can ensure the runners managed by the controller are able to handle jobs reliably when loaded.
This enhances the E2E test suite introduced in #658 to also include the following steps:
- Install GitHub Actions workflow
- Trigger a workflow run via a git commit
- Verify the workflow run result
In the workflow, we use `kubectl create cm --from-literal` to create a configmap that contains an unique test ID. In the last step we obtain the configmap from within the E2E test and check the test ID to match the expected one.
To install a GitHub Actions workflow, we clone a GitHub repository denoted by the TEST_REPO envvar, progmatically generate a few files with some Go code, run `git-add`, `git-commit`, and then `git-push` to actually push the files to the repository. A single commit containing an updated workflow definition and an updated file seems to run a workflow derived to the definition introduced in the commit, which was a bit surpirising and useful behaviour.
At this point, the E2E test fully covers all the steps for a GitHub token based installation. We need to add scenarios for more deployment options, like GitHub App, RunnerDeployment, HRA, and so on. But each of them would worth another pull request.
This is the initial version of our E2E test suite which is currently a subset of the acceptance test suite reimplemented in Go.
To run it, pass `-run ^TestE2E$` to `go test`, without `-short`, like `go test -timeout 600s -run ^TestE2E$ github.com/actions-runner-controller/actions-runner-controller/test/e2e -v`.
`make test` is modified to pass `-short` to `go test` by default to skip E2E tests.
The biggest benefit of rewriting the acceptance test in Go turned out to be the fact that you can easily rerun each step- a go-test "subtest"- individually from your IDE, for faster turnaround. Both VS Code and IntelliJ IDEA/GoLand are known to work.
In the near future, we will add more steps to the suite, like actually git-comminting some Actions workflow and pushing some commit to trigger a workflow run, and verify the workflow and job run results, and finally run it on our `test` workflow to fully automated E2E testing. But that s another story.
`HRA.Spec.ScaleTargetRef.Kind` is added to denote that the scale-target is a RunnerSet.
It defaults to `RunnerDeployment` for backward compatibility.
```
apiVersion: actions.summerwind.dev/v1alpha1
kind: HorizontalRunnerAutoscaler
metadata:
name: myhra
spec:
scaleTargetRef:
kind: RunnerSet
name: myrunnerset
```
Ref #629
Ref #613
Ref #612
* feat: RunnerSet backed by StatefulSet
Unlike a runner deployment, a runner set can manage a set of stateful runners by combining a statefulset and an admission webhook that mutates statefulset-managed pods with required envvars and registration tokens.
Resolves#613
Ref #612
* Upgrade controller-runtime to 0.9.0
* Bump Go to 1.16.x following controller-runtime 0.9.0
* Upgrade kubebuilder to 2.3.2 for updated etcd and apiserver following local setup
* Fix startup failure due to missing LeaderElectionID
* Fix the issue that any pods become unable to start once actions-runner-controller got failed after the mutating webhook has been registered
* Allow force-updating statefulset
* Fix runner container missing work and certs-client volume mounts and DOCKER_HOST and DOCKER_TLS_VERIFY envvars when dockerdWithinRunner=false
* Fix runnerset-controller not applying statefulset.spec.template.spec changes when there were no changes in runnerset spec
* Enable running acceptance tests against arbitrary kind cluster
* RunnerSet supports non-ephemeral runners only today
* fix: docker-build from root Makefile on intel mac
* fix: arch check fixes for mac and ARM
* ci: aligning test data format and patching checks
* fix: removing namespace in test data
* chore: adding more ignores
* chore: removing leading space in shebang
* Re-add metrics to org hra testdata
* Bump cert-manager to v1.1.1 and fix deploy.sh
Co-authored-by: toast-gear <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Callum James Tait <[email protected]>
To prevent people from writing related and unrelated things to already closed issues. As a maitainer, that kind of situation only makes it harder to effectively provide user support. Please create another issue with concrete description of "your issue" and the reproduction steps, rather than commenting "me too" on unrelated issues!
Adds a column to help the operator see if they configured HRA.Spec.ScheduledOverrides correctly, in a form of "next override schedule recognized by the controller":
```
$ k get horizontalrunnerautoscaler
NAME MIN MAX DESIRED SCHEDULE
actions-runner-aos-autoscaler 0 5 0
org 0 5 0 min=0 time=2021-05-21 15:00:00 +0000 UTC
```
Ref https://github.com/actions-runner-controller/actions-runner-controller/issues/484
This fixes human-readable output of `kubectl get` on `runnerdeployment`, `runnerreplicaset`, and `runner`.
Most notably, CURRENT and READY of runner replicasets are now computed and printed correctly. Runner deployments now have UP-TO-DATE and AVAILABLE instead of READY so that it is consistent with columns of K8s deployments.
A few fixes has been also made to runner deployment and runner replicaset controllers so that those numbers stored in Status objects are reliably updated and in-sync with actual values.
Finally, `AGE` columns are added to runnerdeployment, runnerreplicaset, runnner to make that more visible to users.
`kubectl get` outputs should now look like the below examples:
```
# Immediately after runnerdeployment updated/created
$ k get runnerdeployment
NAME DESIRED CURRENT UP-TO-DATE AVAILABLE AGE
example-runnerdeploy 0 0 0 0 8d
org-runnerdeploy 5 5 5 0 8d
# A few dozens of seconds after update/create all the runners are registered that "available" numbers increase
$ k get runnerdeployment
NAME DESIRED CURRENT UP-TO-DATE AVAILABLE AGE
example-runnerdeploy 0 0 0 0 8d
org-runnerdeploy 5 5 5 5 8d
```
```
$ k get runnerreplicaset
NAME DESIRED CURRENT READY AGE
example-runnerdeploy-wnpf6 0 0 0 61m
org-runnerdeploy-fsnmr 2 2 0 8m41s
```
```
$ k get runner
NAME ENTERPRISE ORGANIZATION REPOSITORY LABELS STATUS AGE
example-runnerdeploy-wnpf6-registration-only actions-runner-controller/mumoshu-actions-test Running 61m
org-runnerdeploy-fsnmr-n8kkx actions-runner-controller ["mylabel 1","mylabel 2"] 21s
org-runnerdeploy-fsnmr-sq6m8 actions-runner-controller ["mylabel 1","mylabel 2"] 21s
```
Fixes#490
`PercentageRunnersBusy`, in combination with a secondary `TotalInProgressAndQueuedWorkflowRuns` metric, enables scale-from-zero for PercentageRunnersBusy.
Please see the new `Autoscaling to/from 0` section in the updated documentation about how it works.
Resolves#522
This adds the initial version of ScheduledOverrides to HorizontalRunnerAutoscaler.
`MinReplicas` overriding should just work.
When there are two or more ScheduledOverrides, the earliest one that matched is activated. Each ScheduledOverride can be recurring or one-time. If you have two or more ScheduledOverrides, only one of them should be one-time. And the one-time override should be the earliest item in the list to make sense.
Tests will be added in another commit. Logging improvements and additional observability in HRA.Status will also be added in yet another commits.
Ref #484
Adds two types `RecurrenceRule` and `Period` and one function `MatchSchedule` as the foundation for building the upcoming ScheduledOverrides feature.
Ref #484
Previously any non-go changes resulted in `make docker-build` rerunning time-consufming `go build`. This fixes that by adding clearly unnecessary files .dockerignore
- You can now use `make acceptance/run` to run only a specific acceptance test case
- Add note about Ubuntu 20.04 users / snap-provided docker
- Add instruction to run Ginkgo tests
- Extract acceptance/load from acceptance/kind
- Make `acceptance/pull` not depend on `docker-build`, so that you can do `make docker-build acceptance/load` for faster image reload
This is an attempt to support scaling from/to zero.
The basic idea is that we create a one-off "registration-only" runner pod on RunnerReplicaSet being scaled to zero, so that there is one "offline" runner, which enables GitHub Actions to queue jobs instead of discarding those.
GitHub Actions seems to immediately throw away the new job when there are no runners at all. Generally, having runners of any status, `busy`, `idle`, or `offline` would prevent GitHub actions from failing jobs. But retaining `busy` or `idle` runners means that we need to keep runner pods running, which conflicts with our desired to scale to/from zero, hence we retain `offline` runners.
In this change, I enhanced the runnerreplicaset controller to create a registration-only runner on very beginning of its reconciliation logic, only when a runnerreplicaset is scaled to zero. The runner controller creates the registration-only runner pod, waits for it to become "offline", and then removes the runner pod. The runner on GitHub stays `offline`, until the runner resource on K8s is deleted. As we remove the registration-only runner pod as soon as it registers, this doesn't block cluster-autoscaler.
Related to #447
This makes logging more concise by changing logger names to something like `controllers.Runner` to `actions-runner-controller.runner` after the standard `controller-rutime.controller` and reducing redundant logs by removing unnecessary requeues. I have also tweaked log messages so that their style is more consistent, which will also help readability. Also, runnerreplicaset-controller lacked useful logs so I have enhanced it.
As part of #282, I have introduced some caching mechanism to avoid excessive GitHub API calls due to the autoscaling calculation involving GitHub API calls is executed on each Webhook event.
Apparently, it was saving the wrong value in the cache- The value was one after applying `HRA.Spec.{Max,Min}Replicas` so manual changes to {Max,Min}Replicas doesn't affect RunnerDeployment.Spec.Replicas until the cache expires. This isn't what I had wanted.
This patch fixes that, by changing the value being cached to one before applying {Min,Max}Replicas.
Additionally, I've also updated logging so that you observe which number was fetched from cache, and what number was suggested by either TotalNumberOfQueuedAndInProgressWorkflowRuns or PercentageRunnersBusy, and what was the final number used as the desired-replicas(after applying {Min,Max}Replicas).
Follow-up for #282
Since #392, the runner controller could have taken unexpectedly long time until it finally notices that the runner has been registered to GitHub. This patch fixes the issue, so that the controller will notice the successful registration in approximately 1 minute(hard-coded).
More concretely, let's say you had configured a long sync-period of like 10m, the runner controller could have taken approx 10m to notice the successful registration. The original expectation was 1m, because it was intended to recheck every 1m as implemented in #392. It wasn't working as such due to my misunderstanding in how requeueing work.
We occasionally encountered those errors while the underlying RunnerReplicaSet is being recreated/replaced on RunnerDeployment.Spec.Template update. It turned out to be due to that the RunnerDeployment controller was waiting for the runner pod becomes `Running`, intead of the new replacement runner to have registered to GitHub. This fixes that, by trying to Runner.Status.Phase to `Running` only after the runner in the runner pod appears to be registered.
A side-effect of this change is that runner controller would call more "ListRunners" GitHub Actions API. I've reviewed and improved the runner controller code and Runner CRD to make make the number of calls minimum. In most cases, ListRunners should be called only twice for each runner creation.
This allows you to trigger autoscaling depending on check_run names(i.e. actions job names). If you are willing to differentiate scale amount only for a specific job, or want to scale only on a specific job, try this.
PercentageRunnerBusy seems to have regressed since #355 due to that RunnerDeployment.Spec.Selector is empty by default and the HRA controller was using that empty selector to query runners, which somehow returned 0 runners. This fixes that by using the newly added automatic `runner-deployment-name` label for the default runner label and the selector, which avoids querying with empty selector.
Ref https://github.com/summerwind/actions-runner-controller/issues/377#issuecomment-795200205
We sometimes see that integration test fails due to runner replicas not meeting the expected number in a timely manner. After investigating a bit, this turned out to be due to that HRA updates on webhook-based autoscaler and HRA controller are conflicting. This changes the controllers to use Patch instead of Update to make conflicts less likely to happen.
I have also updated the hra controller to use Patch when updating RunnerDeployment, too.
Overall, these changes should make the webhook-based autoscaling more reliable due to less conflicts.
Similar to #348 for #346, but for HRA.Spec.CapacityReservations usually modified by the webhook-based autoscaler controller.
This patch tries to fix that by improving the webhook-based autoscaler controller to omit expired reservations on updating HRA spec.
`kubectl get horizontalrunnerautoscalers.actions.summerwind.dev` shows HRA.status.desiredReplicas as the DESIRED count. However the value had been not taking capacityReservations into account, which resulted in showing incorrect count when you used webhook-based autoscaler, or capacityReservations API directly. This fixes that.
The controller had been writing confusing messages like the below on missing scale target:
```
Found too many scale targets: It must be exactly one to avoid ambiguity. Either set WatchNamespace for the webhook-based autoscaler to let it only find HRAs in the namespace, or update Repository or Organization fields in your RunnerDeployment resources to fix the ambiguity.{"scaleTargets": ""}
```
This fixes that, while improving many kinds of messages written while reconcilation, so that the error message is more actionable.
We occasionally see logs like the below:
```
2021-02-24T02:48:26.769ZERRORFailed to update runner status{"runnerreplicaset": "testns-244ol/example-runnerdeploy-j5wzf", "error": "Operation cannot be fulfilled on runnerreplicasets.actions.summerwind.dev \"example-runnerdeploy-j5wzf\": the object has been modified; please apply your changes to the latest version and try again"}
github.com/go-logr/zapr.(*zapLogger).Error
/home/runner/go/pkg/mod/github.com/go-logr/[email protected]/zapr.go:128
github.com/summerwind/actions-runner-controller/controllers.(*RunnerReplicaSetReconciler).Reconcile
/home/runner/work/actions-runner-controller/actions-runner-controller/controllers/runnerreplicaset_controller.go:207
sigs.k8s.io/controller-runtime/pkg/internal/controller.(*Controller).reconcileHandler
/home/runner/go/pkg/mod/sigs.k8s.io/[email protected]/pkg/internal/controller/controller.go:256
sigs.k8s.io/controller-runtime/pkg/internal/controller.(*Controller).processNextWorkItem
/home/runner/go/pkg/mod/sigs.k8s.io/[email protected]/pkg/internal/controller/controller.go:232
sigs.k8s.io/controller-runtime/pkg/internal/controller.(*Controller).worker
/home/runner/go/pkg/mod/sigs.k8s.io/[email protected]/pkg/internal/controller/controller.go:211
k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/util/wait.JitterUntil.func1
/home/runner/go/pkg/mod/k8s.io/[email protected]/pkg/util/wait/wait.go:152
k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/util/wait.JitterUntil
/home/runner/go/pkg/mod/k8s.io/[email protected]/pkg/util/wait/wait.go:153
k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/util/wait.Until
/home/runner/go/pkg/mod/k8s.io/[email protected]/pkg/util/wait/wait.go:88
2021-02-24T02:48:26.769ZERRORcontroller-runtime.controllerReconciler error{"controller": "testns-244olrunnerreplicaset", "request": "testns-244ol/example-runnerdeploy-j5wzf", "error": "Operation cannot be fulfilled on runnerreplicasets.actions.summerwind.dev \"example-runnerdeploy-j5wzf\": the object has been modified; please apply your changes to the latest version and try again"}
github.com/go-logr/zapr.(*zapLogger).Error
/home/runner/go/pkg/mod/github.com/go-logr/[email protected]/zapr.go:128
sigs.k8s.io/controller-runtime/pkg/internal/controller.(*Controller).reconcileHandler
/home/runner/go/pkg/mod/sigs.k8s.io/[email protected]/pkg/internal/controller/controller.go:258
sigs.k8s.io/controller-runtime/pkg/internal/controller.(*Controller).processNextWorkItem
/home/runner/go/pkg/mod/sigs.k8s.io/[email protected]/pkg/internal/controller/controller.go:232
sigs.k8s.io/controller-runtime/pkg/internal/controller.(*Controller).worker
/home/runner/go/pkg/mod/sigs.k8s.io/[email protected]/pkg/internal/controller/controller.go:211
k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/util/wait.JitterUntil.func1
/home/runner/go/pkg/mod/k8s.io/[email protected]/pkg/util/wait/wait.go:152
k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/util/wait.JitterUntil
/home/runner/go/pkg/mod/k8s.io/[email protected]/pkg/util/wait/wait.go:153
k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/util/wait.Until
/home/runner/go/pkg/mod/k8s.io/[email protected]/pkg/util/wait/wait.go:88
```
which can be compacted into one-liner, without the useless stack trace, without double-logging the same error from the logger and the controller.
Apparently I have mistakenly removed `push` option from the workflow in #323 which resulted in new runner build #323 not being pushed. This fixes that.
Yusuke Kuoka