* the reconciliation loop is often much faster than the runner startup,
so changing runner not found related messages to debug and also add the
possibility that the runner just needs more time
* errors.Is compares all members of a struct to return true which never
happened
* switched to type check instead of exact value check
* notRegistered was using double negation in if statement which lead to
unregistering runners after the registration timeout
* if a k8s node becomes unresponsive, the kube controller will soft
delete all pods after the eviction time (default 5 mins)
* as long as the node stays unresponsive, the pod will never leave the
last status and hence the runner controller will assume that everything
is fine with the pod and will not try to create new pods
* this can result in a situation where a horizontal autoscaler thinks
that none of its runners are currently busy and will not schedule any
further runners / pods, resulting in a broken runner deployment until the
runnerreplicaset is deleted or the node comes back online
* introducing a pod deletion timeout (1 minute) after which the runner
controller will try to reboot the runner and create a pod on a working
node
* use forceful deletion and requeue for pods that have been stuck for
more than one minute in terminating state
* gracefully handling race conditions if pod gets finally forcefully deleted within
This enhances the controller to recreate the runner pod if the corresponding runner has failed to register itself to GitHub within 10 minutes(currently hard-coded).
It should alleviate #288 in case the root cause is some kind of transient failures(network unreliability, GitHub down, temporarly compute resource shortage, etc).
Formerly you had to manually detect and delete such pods or even force-delete corresponding runners to unblock the controller.
Since this enhancement, the controller does the pod deletion automatically after 10 minutes after pod creation, which result in the controller create another pod that might work.
Ref #288
When we used `QueuedAndInProgressWorkflowRuns`-based autoscaling, it only fetched and considered only the first 30 workflow runs at the reconcilation time. This may have resulted in unreliable scaling behaviour, like scale-in/out not happening when it was expected.
* feat: HorizontalRunnerAutoscaler Webhook server
This introduces a Webhook server that responds GitHub `check_run`, `pull_request`, and `push` events by scaling up matched HorizontalRunnerAutoscaler by 1 replica. This allows you to immediately add "resource slack" for future GitHub Actions job runs, without waiting next sync period to add insufficient runners.
This feature is highly inspired by https://github.com/philips-labs/terraform-aws-github-runner. terraform-aws-github-runner can manage one set of runners per deployment, where actions-runner-controller with this feature can manage as many sets of runners as you declare with HorizontalRunnerAutoscaler and RunnerDeployment pairs.
On each GitHub event received, the webhook server queries repository-wide and organizational runners from the cluster and searches for the single target to scale up. The webhook server tries to match HorizontalRunnerAutoscaler.Spec.ScaleUpTriggers[].GitHubEvent.[CheckRun|Push|PullRequest] against the event and if it finds only one HRA, it is the scale target. If none or two or more targets are found for repository-wide runners, it does the same on organizational runners.
Changes:
* Fix integration test
* Update manifests
* chart: Add support for github webhook server
* dockerfile: Include github-webhook-server binary
* Do not import unversioned go-github
* Update README
* ensure that minReplicas <= desiredReplicas <= maxReplicas no matter what
* before this change, if the number of runners was much larger than the max number, the applied scale down factor might still result in a desired value > maxReplicas
* if for resource constraints in the cluster, runners would be permanently restarted, the number of runners could go up more than the reverse scale down factor until the next reconciliation round, resulting in a situation where the number of runners climbs up even though it should actually go down
* by checking whether the desiredReplicas is always <= maxReplicas, infinite scaling up loops can be prevented
One of the pod recreation conditions has been modified to use hash of runner spec, so that the controller does not keep restarting pods mutated by admission webhooks. This naturally allows us, for example, to use IRSA for EKS that requires its admission webhook to mutate the runner pod to have additional, IRSA-related volumes, volume mounts and env.
Resolves#200
* runner/controller: Add externals directory mount point
* Runner: Create hack for moving content of /runner/externals/ dir
* Externals dir Mount: mount examples for '__e/node12/bin/node' not found error
Add dockerEnabled option for users who does not need docker and want not to run privileged container.
if `dockerEnabled == false`, dind container not run, and there are no privileged container.
Do the same as closed#96
* Adds RUNNER_GROUP argument to the runner registration
Adds the ability to register a runner to a predefined runner_group
Resolves#137
* Update README with runner group example
- Updates the README with instructions of how to add the runner to a
group
- Fix code fencing for shell and yaml blocks in the README
- Use consistent bullet points (dash not asterisk)
Currently, after refreshing the token, the controller re-creates the runner with the new token. This results in jobs being interrupted. This PR makes sure the pod is not restarted if it is busy.
Closes#74
This is a follow-up for #66.
The reconciler for the new HorizontalRunnerDeploymentAutoscaler had a terrible flaw that prevented the controller to fail launching due to an error like:
```
indexer conflict: map[field:.metadata.controller:{}]
```
This fixes that, while adding `integration_test.go` to verify its actually fixed and prevent regression in the future.
Enhances #57 to add support for organizational runners.
As GitHub Actions does not have an appropriate API for this, this is the spec you need:
```
apiVersion: actions.summerwind.dev/v1alpha1
kind: RunnerDeployment
metadata:
name: myrunners
spec:
minReplicas: 1
maxReplicas: 3
autoscaling:
metrics:
- type: TotalNumberOfQueuedAndProgressingWorkflowRuns
repositories:
# Assumes that you have `github.com/myorg/myrepo1` repo
- myrepo1
- myrepo2
template:
spec:
organization: myorg
```
It works by collecting "in_progress" and "queued" workflow runs for the repositories `myrepo1` and `myrepo2` to autoscale the number of replicas, assuming you have this organizational runner deployment only for those two repositories.
For example, if `myrepo1` had 1 `in_progress` and 2 `queued` workflow runs, and `myrepo2` had 4 `in_progress` and 8 `queued` workflow runs at the time of running the reconcilation loop on the runner deployment, it will scale replicas to 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 = 15.
Perhaps we might be better add a kind of "ratio" setting so that you can configure the controller to create e.g. 2x runners than demanded. But that's another story.
Ref #10
* feat: Repository-wide RunnerDeployment Autoscaling
This adds `maxReplicas` and `minReplicas` to the RunnerDeploymentSpec. If and only if both fields are set, the controller computes and sets desired `replicas` automatically depending on the demand.
The number of demanded runner replicas is computed by `queued workflow runs + in_progress workflow runs` for the repository. The support for organizational runners is not included.
Ref https://github.com/summerwind/actions-runner-controller/issues/10
Yusuke Kuoka
Johannes Nicolai
Jesse Haka
Jonas Lergell
ZacharyBenamram
Juho Saarinen
Erik Nobel
Shinnosuke Sawada
Reinier Timmer
Erik Nobel
Yusuke Kuoka
Dan Webb
Brendan Galloway
Dominic LoBue
Helder Moreira
Moto Ishizawa
David Liao