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
- Adds `ephemeral` option to `runner.spec`
```
....
template:
spec:
ephemeral: false
repository: mumoshu/actions-runner-controller-ci
....
```
- `ephemeral` defaults to `true`
- `entrypoint.sh` in runner/Dockerfile modified to read `RUNNER_EPHEMERAL` flag
- Runner images are backward-compatible. `--once` is omitted only when the new envvar `RUNNER_EPHEMERAL` is explicitly set to `false`.
Resolves#457
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
Changes:
- Switched to use `jq` in startup.sh
- Enable docker registry mirror configuration which is useful when e.g. avoiding the Docker Hub rate-limiting
Check #478 for how this feature is tested and supposed to be used.
Enable the user to set a limit size on the volume of the runner to avoid some runner pod affecting other resources of the same cluster
Co-authored-by: Yusuke Kuoka <ykuoka@gmail.com>
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/zapr@v0.1.0/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/controller-runtime@v0.4.0/pkg/internal/controller/controller.go:256
sigs.k8s.io/controller-runtime/pkg/internal/controller.(*Controller).processNextWorkItem
/home/runner/go/pkg/mod/sigs.k8s.io/controller-runtime@v0.4.0/pkg/internal/controller/controller.go:232
sigs.k8s.io/controller-runtime/pkg/internal/controller.(*Controller).worker
/home/runner/go/pkg/mod/sigs.k8s.io/controller-runtime@v0.4.0/pkg/internal/controller/controller.go:211
k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/util/wait.JitterUntil.func1
/home/runner/go/pkg/mod/k8s.io/apimachinery@v0.0.0-20190913080033-27d36303b655/pkg/util/wait/wait.go:152
k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/util/wait.JitterUntil
/home/runner/go/pkg/mod/k8s.io/apimachinery@v0.0.0-20190913080033-27d36303b655/pkg/util/wait/wait.go:153
k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/util/wait.Until
/home/runner/go/pkg/mod/k8s.io/apimachinery@v0.0.0-20190913080033-27d36303b655/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/zapr@v0.1.0/zapr.go:128
sigs.k8s.io/controller-runtime/pkg/internal/controller.(*Controller).reconcileHandler
/home/runner/go/pkg/mod/sigs.k8s.io/controller-runtime@v0.4.0/pkg/internal/controller/controller.go:258
sigs.k8s.io/controller-runtime/pkg/internal/controller.(*Controller).processNextWorkItem
/home/runner/go/pkg/mod/sigs.k8s.io/controller-runtime@v0.4.0/pkg/internal/controller/controller.go:232
sigs.k8s.io/controller-runtime/pkg/internal/controller.(*Controller).worker
/home/runner/go/pkg/mod/sigs.k8s.io/controller-runtime@v0.4.0/pkg/internal/controller/controller.go:211
k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/util/wait.JitterUntil.func1
/home/runner/go/pkg/mod/k8s.io/apimachinery@v0.0.0-20190913080033-27d36303b655/pkg/util/wait/wait.go:152
k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/util/wait.JitterUntil
/home/runner/go/pkg/mod/k8s.io/apimachinery@v0.0.0-20190913080033-27d36303b655/pkg/util/wait/wait.go:153
k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/util/wait.Until
/home/runner/go/pkg/mod/k8s.io/apimachinery@v0.0.0-20190913080033-27d36303b655/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.
* if a runner pod starts up with an invalid token, it will go in an
infinite retry loop, appearing as RUNNING from the outside
* normally, this error situation is detected because no corresponding
runner objects exists in GitHub and the pod will get removed after
registration timeout
* if the GitHub runner object already existed before - e.g. because a
finalizer was not properly run as part of a partial Kubernetes crash,
the runner will always stay in a running mode, even updating the
registration token will not kill the problematic pod
* introducing RunnerOffline exception that can be handled in runner
controller and replicaset controller
* as runners are offline when a pod is completed and marked for restart,
only do additional restart checks if no restart was already decided,
making code a bit cleaner and saving GitHub API calls after each job
completion
I have heard from some user that they have hundred thousands of `status=completed` workflow runs in their repository which effectively blocked TotalNumberOfQueuedAndInProgressWorkflowRuns from working because of GitHub API rate limit due to excessive paginated requests.
This fixes that by separating list-workflow-runs calls to two - one for `queued` and one for `in_progress`, which can make the minimum API call from 1 to 2, but allows it to work regardless of number of remaining `completed` workflow runs.
Yusuke Kuoka
Thejas N
Christoph Brand
Rolf Ahrenberg
Manuel Jurado
Agoney Garcia-Deniz
asoldino
Christoph Brand
Hidetake Iwata
Brandon Kimbrough
Rob Whitby
Hiroshi Muraoka
Johannes Nicolai