Skip to content

CNTRLPLANE-3371: Fix AllowedCIDRs e2e test for Route-based KAS#8469

Open
bryan-cox wants to merge 1 commit into
openshift:mainfrom
bryan-cox:CNTRLPLANE-3371
Open

CNTRLPLANE-3371: Fix AllowedCIDRs e2e test for Route-based KAS#8469
bryan-cox wants to merge 1 commit into
openshift:mainfrom
bryan-cox:CNTRLPLANE-3371

Conversation

@bryan-cox
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@bryan-cox bryan-cox commented May 8, 2026

What

Fixes the ValidateKubeAPIServerAllowedCIDRs e2e test so it passes on v2 Azure self-managed clusters where KAS uses Route publishing strategy (via --external-dns-domain).

Why

The test was skipped in v2 CI (--ginkgo.skip="KAS allowed CIDRs") because it always failed. Both v1 and v2 Azure self-managed use Route strategy for KAS, but v1 passes while v2 fails due to a difference in cluster lifecycle timing combined with HTTP/2 connection reuse.

Root cause: HTTP/2 connection reuse

The test reuses a single kubeclient.Clientset across all ServerVersion() poll iterations. Go's HTTP/2 transport multiplexes all requests over a single persistent TCP connection. If the first poll succeeds before Azure NSG rules take effect, all subsequent polls reuse that connection and never observe the expected failure.

Why v1 passes but v2 fails: In v1, the cluster is created fresh inside TestCreateCluster, so the CPO is in its initial reconciliation burst — the router service's LoadBalancerSourceRanges and corresponding Azure NSG rules are updated before the first ServerVersion() call. In v2, the cluster is pre-created and shared across tests, so the CPO is in steady-state with longer reconciliation intervals. The first ServerVersion() call succeeds before the NSG rules catch up, and HTTP/2 holds that connection open for all subsequent polls.

Additional fix: missing downstream service wait

The test waits for AllowedCIDRBlocks to propagate from the HostedCluster to the HostedControlPlane, but does not wait for the CPO to reconcile the downstream LoadBalancer service's LoadBalancerSourceRanges. This is a race condition that exists in both v1 and v2 — v1 just happens to win the race due to CPO being in active reconciliation. Adding an explicit wait makes the test correct rather than relying on timing.

Changes

test/e2e/util/util.go — single file, three changes:

  1. ensureAPIServerAllowedCIDRs signature: *kubeclient.Clientset*rest.Config to enable fresh client creation per poll
  2. Fresh kubeclient per poll: Each ServerVersion() iteration creates a new client via kubeclient.NewForConfig(rest.CopyConfig(guestConfig)), preventing HTTP/2 connection reuse.
  3. Strategy-aware service wait: New allowedCIDRsTargetService() helper determines the correct LB service based on APIServer publishing strategy (Route → router, LoadBalancer → platform-specific KAS LB). An Eventually block waits for the service's LoadBalancerSourceRanges to match before checking KAS reachability.

Test Plan

  • go build -tags e2e ./test/e2e/... — compiles
  • go build -tags e2ev2 ./test/e2e/v2/... — compiles
  • go vet -tags e2e ./test/e2e/... — passes
  • Re-run v2 rehearsal on openshift/release#79048 after merge

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Bug Fixes

    • Improved API server CIDR restriction validation to wait for reconciliation and ensure network rules are verified against the correct downstream service for each publishing strategy and platform; validation is skipped when no applicable downstream service exists.
  • Tests

    • Strengthened reachability checks by recreating client connections per attempt and added tests verifying downstream service selection across platforms and publishing strategies.
  • Chores

    • Reordered Azure post-create validation steps for more reliable verification.

@openshift-merge-bot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Pipeline controller notification
This repo is configured to use the pipeline controller. Second-stage tests will be triggered either automatically or after lgtm label is added, depending on the repository configuration. The pipeline controller will automatically detect which contexts are required and will utilize /test Prow commands to trigger the second stage.

For optional jobs, comment /test ? to see a list of all defined jobs. To trigger manually all jobs from second stage use /pipeline required command.

This repository is configured in: LGTM mode

@openshift-ci
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

openshift-ci Bot commented May 8, 2026

Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request.
If you want CI signal for your change, please convert it to an actual PR.
You can still manually trigger a test run with /test all

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the jira/valid-reference Indicates that this PR references a valid Jira ticket of any type. label May 8, 2026
@openshift-ci openshift-ci Bot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label May 8, 2026
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Copy Markdown

openshift-ci-robot commented May 8, 2026

@bryan-cox: This pull request references CNTRLPLANE-3371 which is a valid jira issue.

Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the task to target the "5.0.0" version, but no target version was set.

Details

In response to this:

What

Fixes the ValidateKubeAPIServerAllowedCIDRs e2e test so it passes on v2 Azure self-managed clusters where KAS uses Route publishing strategy (via --external-dns-domain).

Why

The test was skipped in v2 CI (--ginkgo.skip="KAS allowed CIDRs") because it always failed. Root cause: two issues compound to make the test pass on v1 but fail on v2.

1. Missing downstream service wait

The test waits for AllowedCIDRBlocks to propagate from the HostedCluster to the HostedControlPlane, but does not wait for the CPO to reconcile the downstream LoadBalancer service's LoadBalancerSourceRanges. With Route strategy, the relevant service is the router LB service (not a KAS LB). The CPO reconciliation adds a delay that the test doesn't account for.

2. HTTP/2 connection reuse

The test reuses a single kubeclient.Clientset across all ServerVersion() poll iterations. Go's HTTP/2 transport multiplexes all requests over a single persistent TCP connection. If the first poll succeeds before Azure NSG rules take effect, all subsequent polls reuse that connection and never observe the expected failure.

Changes

test/e2e/util/util.go — single file, three changes:

  1. ensureAPIServerAllowedCIDRs signature: *kubeclient.Clientset*rest.Config to enable fresh client creation per poll
  2. Strategy-aware service wait: New allowedCIDRsTargetService() helper determines the correct LB service based on APIServer publishing strategy (Route → router, LoadBalancer → platform-specific KAS LB). An Eventually block waits for the service's LoadBalancerSourceRanges to match before checking KAS reachability.
  3. Fresh kubeclient per poll: Each ServerVersion() iteration creates a new client via kubeclient.NewForConfig(rest.CopyConfig(guestConfig)), preventing HTTP/2 connection reuse.

Test Plan

  • go build -tags e2e ./test/e2e/... — compiles
  • go build -tags e2ev2 ./test/e2e/v2/... — compiles
  • go vet -tags e2e ./test/e2e/... — passes
  • Re-run v2 rehearsal on openshift/release#79048 after merge

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

@coderabbitai
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

coderabbitai Bot commented May 8, 2026

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info
⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Repository YAML (base), Central YAML (inherited)

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Enterprise

Run ID: abd9d6da-198a-4e2c-8f8c-53e68a20f6da

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between b7d3e11 and d4e7140.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)
  • test/e2e/create_cluster_test.go
  • test/e2e/util/util.go
  • test/e2e/util/util_test.go
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
  • test/e2e/util/util_test.go
  • test/e2e/util/util.go

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

ValidateKubeAPIServerAllowedCIDRs now passes the guest REST config into ensureAPIServerAllowedCIDRs. ensureAPIServerAllowedCIDRs first waits for the control-plane to reconcile HostedCluster.Spec.Networking.APIServer.AllowedCIDRBlocks into the downstream Service.spec.LoadBalancerSourceRanges (target Service selected by publishing strategy and cloud-specific rules). It then polls reachability by creating a fresh guest kubeclient on each attempt (copying the rest.Config with a custom Dial) and calling ServerVersion() to verify network restrictions.

Sequence Diagram(s)

sequenceDiagram
    participant Test as Test Harness
    participant CP as Control-Plane Reconciler
    participant LB as Downstream Service/LoadBalancer
    participant GuestAPI as Guest kube-apiserver

    Test->>CP: Set HostedCluster.Spec.Networking.APIServer.AllowedCIDRBlocks
    Note right of CP: Reconciler selects target Service based on publishing strategy/cloud
    CP->>LB: Update Service.spec.LoadBalancerSourceRanges
    loop Wait for reconciliation
        Test->>LB: GET Service.spec.LoadBalancerSourceRanges
        alt Ranges match expected
            Note right of Test: Begin reachability polling
            loop Reachability attempt
                Test->>GuestAPI: Create fresh kubeclient (copy rest.Config + custom Dial) and call ServerVersion()
                GuestAPI-->>Test: respond (reachable/unreachable)
            end
        else Not reconciled
            Test-->>Test: sleep and retry
        end
    end
Loading

Suggested reviewers

  • enxebre
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 10 | ❌ 2

❌ Failed checks (2 warnings)

Check name Status Explanation Resolution
Docstring Coverage ⚠️ Warning Docstring coverage is 50.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%. Write docstrings for the functions missing them to satisfy the coverage threshold.
Ipv6 And Disconnected Network Test Compatibility ⚠️ Warning Modified EnsureKubeAPIServerAllowedCIDRs test uses hardcoded IPv4 CIDRs (0.0.0.0/32, 0.0.0.0/0, 250.250.250.x/32) without IPv6 support. Will fail on IPv6-only disconnected CI. Detect cluster IP family and use appropriate CIDRs for IPv6 (::/128, ::/0). Use GetIPAddressFamily() or InIPv4ClusterContext() wrapper, or add [Skipped:Disconnected] tag to test name if IPv6 support cannot be implemented.
✅ Passed checks (10 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Description Check ✅ Passed Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check ✅ Passed The title clearly and specifically describes the main change: fixing the AllowedCIDRs e2e test for Route-based Kube API Server, with the issue reference providing context.
Linked Issues check ✅ Passed Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check ✅ Passed Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Stable And Deterministic Test Names ✅ Passed All new test names are static and deterministic. TestAllowedCIDRsTargetService uses standard Go testing with 9 table-driven cases. No dynamic values, IDs, timestamps, or pod/node names found.
Test Structure And Quality ✅ Passed Test meets quality standards: single responsibility, no cleanup needed, no timeouts required, and follows codebase patterns consistently.
Microshift Test Compatibility ✅ Passed No new Ginkgo e2e tests (It(), Describe(), Context(), When()) were added in this PR. The only new test is TestAllowedCIDRsTargetService, a standard Go unit test. The check is not applicable.
Single Node Openshift (Sno) Test Compatibility ✅ Passed This PR adds no new Ginkgo e2e tests. It only adds a standard Go unit test (TestAllowedCIDRsTargetService) that tests a helper function with mock data. The custom check is not applicable.
Topology-Aware Scheduling Compatibility ✅ Passed PR modifies only e2e test files (test/e2e/util/, test/e2e/create_cluster_test.go). Does not introduce any production deployment manifests, operator code, or pod scheduling constraints.
Ote Binary Stdout Contract ✅ Passed PR contains only test code with no process-level entry points. The fmt.Printf found is in a test helper, not process-level code. No stdout violations detected.

✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.

✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

@openshift-ci openshift-ci Bot added approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. area/testing Indicates the PR includes changes for e2e testing and removed do-not-merge/needs-area labels May 8, 2026
@codecov
Copy link
Copy Markdown

codecov Bot commented May 8, 2026

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 40.00%. Comparing base (b0a10c5) to head (d4e7140).
⚠️ Report is 115 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8469      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   37.49%   40.00%   +2.50%     
==========================================
  Files         751      751              
  Lines       91984    92863     +879     
==========================================
+ Hits        34487    37147    +2660     
+ Misses      54854    53024    -1830     
- Partials     2643     2692      +49     

see 58 files with indirect coverage changes

Flag Coverage Δ
cmd-support 34.09% <ø> (+1.45%) ⬆️
cpo-hostedcontrolplane 40.56% <ø> (+3.79%) ⬆️
cpo-other 40.14% <ø> (+2.41%) ⬆️
hypershift-operator 50.52% <ø> (+2.58%) ⬆️
other 31.54% <ø> (+3.76%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@bryan-cox bryan-cox marked this pull request as ready for review May 8, 2026 19:29
@bryan-cox
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

/pipeline required

@bryan-cox
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

/pipeline required

@openshift-merge-bot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Scheduling tests matching the pipeline_run_if_changed or not excluded by pipeline_skip_if_only_changed parameters:
/test e2e-aks-4-22
/test e2e-aws-4-22
/test e2e-aks
/test e2e-aws
/test e2e-aws-upgrade-hypershift-operator
/test e2e-azure-self-managed
/test e2e-kubevirt-aws-ovn-reduced
/test e2e-v2-aws

@openshift-ci openshift-ci Bot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label May 11, 2026
@cwbotbot
Copy link
Copy Markdown

cwbotbot commented May 11, 2026

Test Results

e2e-aws

e2e-aks

Failed Tests

Total failed tests: 3

  • TestCreateCluster
  • TestCreateCluster/Main
  • TestCreateCluster/Main/EnsureAzureWorkloadIdentityWebhookMutation

@bryan-cox
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

/retest

@bryan-cox
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

/test e2e-aws

@bryan-cox
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

/test e2e-aks-4-22

@hypershift-jira-solve-ci
Copy link
Copy Markdown

AI Test Failure Analysis

Job: pull-ci-openshift-hypershift-main-e2e-aks | Build: 2053786112610013184 | Cost: $4.889827649999997 | Failed step: hypershift-azure-run-e2e

View full analysis report


Generated by hypershift-analyze-e2e-failure post-step using Claude claude-opus-4-6

@bryan-cox
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

/test e2e-aks

@bryan-cox
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

/test e2e-aws

@hypershift-jira-solve-ci
Copy link
Copy Markdown

AI Test Failure Analysis

Job: pull-ci-openshift-hypershift-main-e2e-aws | Build: 2053827692964352000 | Cost: $4.6627350000000005 | Failed step: hypershift-aws-run-e2e-nested

View full analysis report


Generated by hypershift-analyze-e2e-failure post-step using Claude claude-opus-4-6

@bryan-cox
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

/test e2e-aws

@hypershift-jira-solve-ci
Copy link
Copy Markdown

hypershift-jira-solve-ci Bot commented May 11, 2026

I have all the evidence needed. Here is the complete analysis:

Test Failure Analysis Complete

Job Information

Test Failure Analysis

Error

Pod scheduling timeout. 0/56 nodes are available: 1 node(s) didn't satisfy existing pods anti-affinity rules, 1 node(s) had untolerated taint {node-role.kubernetes.io/ci-builds-tmpfs-worker: ci-builds-tmpfs-worker}, 1 node(s) had untolerated taint {node-role.kubernetes.io/ci-longtests-worker: ci-longtests-worker}, 1 node(s) had untolerated taint {node.kubernetes.io/not-ready: }, 16 node(s) didn't match Pod's node affinity/selector, 2 Insufficient memory, 24 node(s) had untolerated taint {node-role.kubernetes.io/ci-tests-worker: ci-tests-worker}, 3 node(s) had untolerated taint {node-role.kubernetes.io/infra: }, 3 node(s) had untolerated taint {node-role.kubernetes.io/master: }, 4 node(s) had untolerated taint {node-role.kubernetes.io/ci-builds-worker: ci-builds-worker}.

Summary

This is a CI infrastructure failure, not a test or code failure. The ci-operator pod for the security job was never scheduled on the build01 cluster because no suitable node was available among all 56 nodes for the entire 30-minute scheduling timeout window. The pod remained in Pending state until Prow terminated it with a "Pod scheduling timeout" error. No test code was executed — the PR changes are not implicated in this failure.

Root Cause

The CI pod could not be scheduled on the build01 cluster due to resource exhaustion and node constraints. The Kubernetes scheduler evaluated all 56 nodes and found none suitable:

  • 24 nodes had untolerated taint ci-tests-worker (reserved for test workloads, not ci-operator build pods)
  • 16 nodes didn't match the pod's node affinity/selector (the pod has multiarch.openshift.io preferred node affinity for amd64)
  • 4 nodes had untolerated taint ci-builds-worker (reserved for a different build workload class)
  • 3 nodes had untolerated taint master (control plane nodes)
  • 3 nodes had untolerated taint infra (infrastructure nodes)
  • 2 nodes had insufficient memory (eligible nodes but out of resources)
  • 1 node had untolerated taint ci-builds-tmpfs-worker
  • 1 node had untolerated taint ci-longtests-worker
  • 1 node had untolerated taint not-ready (unhealthy node)
  • 1 node failed pod anti-affinity rules

The 2 nodes that were actually eligible for this pod type did not have enough memory to schedule it. Preemption was also not possible — the scheduler found no viable preemption victims on the memory-constrained nodes. The pod waited for 30 minutes (the default Prow scheduling timeout) before being terminated.

This is a transient cluster capacity issue on build01, completely unrelated to the PR changes.

Recommendations
  1. Retest the PR — Run /test security on the PR to trigger a new attempt. This is a transient infrastructure issue and is very likely to succeed on retry.
  2. No code changes needed — The PR (CNTRLPLANE-3371) was not involved in this failure. No test code was executed.
  3. If retests continue to fail with the same error, the build01 cluster may be under sustained capacity pressure. In that case, escalate to the CI infrastructure team (Test Platform / DPTP) to investigate node capacity on build01.
Evidence
Evidence Detail
Failure type CI infrastructure — pod scheduling timeout
Job state error (not failure — indicates infra issue, not test failure)
Pod phase Failed — pod never reached Running
PodScheduled condition False / Unschedulable
Cluster build01 (56 nodes evaluated, 0 schedulable)
Eligible nodes 2 nodes matched selectors/tolerations but had insufficient memory
Preemption attempted Yes — no viable victims found
Scheduling wait 30 minutes (15:42:54Z → 16:12:54Z)
Build log Not present — no build log artifact was generated (pod never started)
Test execution None — ci-operator never ran; no test code was evaluated
Container statuses Empty — no containers were ever created

@bryan-cox
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

/test security

@openshift-merge-bot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Scheduling tests matching the pipeline_run_if_changed or not excluded by pipeline_skip_if_only_changed parameters:
/test e2e-aks-4-22
/test e2e-aws-4-22
/test e2e-aks
/test e2e-aws
/test e2e-aws-upgrade-hypershift-operator
/test e2e-azure-self-managed
/test e2e-kubevirt-aws-ovn-reduced
/test e2e-v2-aws
/test e2e-v2-gke

@openshift-ci
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

openshift-ci Bot commented May 13, 2026

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: bryan-cox, cblecker

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:

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

@cblecker
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@coderabbitai resume

@coderabbitai
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

coderabbitai Bot commented May 13, 2026

✅ Actions performed

Reviews resumed.

@hypershift-jira-solve-ci
Copy link
Copy Markdown

AI Test Failure Analysis

Job: pull-ci-openshift-hypershift-main-e2e-aks | Build: 2054695287196225536 | Cost: $3.345031900000001 | Failed step: hypershift-azure-run-e2e

View full analysis report


Generated by hypershift-analyze-e2e-failure post-step using Claude claude-opus-4-6

@hypershift-jira-solve-ci
Copy link
Copy Markdown

AI Test Failure Analysis

Job: pull-ci-openshift-hypershift-main-e2e-azure-self-managed | Build: 2054695299795914752 | Cost: $3.15317325 | Failed step: hypershift-azure-run-e2e-self-managed

View full analysis report


Generated by hypershift-analyze-e2e-failure post-step using Claude claude-opus-4-6

@bryan-cox
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

/retest

@hypershift-jira-solve-ci
Copy link
Copy Markdown

AI Test Failure Analysis

Job: pull-ci-openshift-hypershift-main-e2e-aks | Build: 2054732206756073472 | Cost: $4.0600609500000004 | Failed step: hypershift-azure-run-e2e

View full analysis report


Generated by hypershift-analyze-e2e-failure post-step using Claude claude-opus-4-6

@bryan-cox
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

/retest

@hypershift-jira-solve-ci
Copy link
Copy Markdown

AI Test Failure Analysis

Job: pull-ci-openshift-hypershift-main-e2e-azure-self-managed | Build: 2054732206865125376 | Cost: $2.7961020000000008 | Failed step: hypershift-azure-run-e2e-self-managed

View full analysis report


Generated by hypershift-analyze-e2e-failure post-step using Claude claude-opus-4-6

@enxebre
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

enxebre commented May 14, 2026

cc @muraee

@bryan-cox
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

/retest

@bryan-cox
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Retesting once more — all three Azure failures appear to be infrastructure issues unrelated to this PR's changes:

  • e2e-azure-self-managed: Controller-runtime cache sync timeout; tests never ran.
  • e2e-aks-4-22: TLS handshake timeouts across all tests, not specific to any single test.
  • e2e-aks: EnsureAzureWorkloadIdentityWebhookMutation failed, which is a different test from the AllowedCIDRs changes in this PR. The AllowedCIDRs cleanup restores to a more permissive state (nil) before this test runs.

@hypershift-jira-solve-ci
Copy link
Copy Markdown

AI Test Failure Analysis

Job: pull-ci-openshift-hypershift-main-e2e-aks | Build: 2054917108772376576 | Cost: $3.1104872500000003 | Failed step: hypershift-azure-run-e2e

View full analysis report


Generated by hypershift-analyze-e2e-failure post-step using Claude claude-opus-4-6

@openshift-ci openshift-ci Bot removed the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label May 14, 2026
@bryan-cox
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

/test e2e-aks

@cblecker
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci Bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label May 14, 2026
@openshift-merge-bot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Tests from second stage were triggered manually. Pipeline can be controlled only manually, until HEAD changes. Use command to trigger second stage.

@hypershift-jira-solve-ci
Copy link
Copy Markdown

AI Test Failure Analysis

Job: pull-ci-openshift-hypershift-main-e2e-aks | Build: 2054976904397590528 | Cost: $4.905680249999998 | Failed step: hypershift-azure-run-e2e

View full analysis report


Generated by hypershift-analyze-e2e-failure post-step using Claude claude-opus-4-6

The ValidateKubeAPIServerAllowedCIDRs test fails on v2 Azure
self-managed clusters because KAS uses Route publishing strategy
(via external-dns-domain), not LoadBalancer.

Two fixes:

1. Wait for the downstream LB service (router or KAS LB) to have its
   LoadBalancerSourceRanges updated by the CPO before asserting KAS
   reachability. The target service is determined by the HC's APIServer
   publishing strategy.

2. Create a fresh kubeclient per poll iteration to prevent HTTP/2
   connection reuse. Go's HTTP/2 transport multiplexes all requests over
   a single persistent TCP connection — if a prior request succeeded
   before Azure NSG rules took effect, subsequent requests bypass the
   restriction on the same connection.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@bryan-cox
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

/test e2e-aks

@openshift-ci openshift-ci Bot removed the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label May 14, 2026
@hypershift-jira-solve-ci
Copy link
Copy Markdown

AI Test Failure Analysis

Job: pull-ci-openshift-hypershift-main-e2e-aks | Build: 2055065233222799360 | Cost: $3.2690311999999992 | Failed step: hypershift-azure-run-e2e

View full analysis report


Generated by hypershift-analyze-e2e-failure post-step using Claude claude-opus-4-6

@openshift-ci
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

openshift-ci Bot commented May 15, 2026

@bryan-cox: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name Commit Details Required Rerun command
ci/prow/e2e-aks d4e7140 link true /test e2e-aks
ci/prow/e2e-aks-4-22 43d818b link true /test e2e-aks-4-22

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Details

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. I understand the commands that are listed here.

@cblecker
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci Bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label May 15, 2026
@openshift-merge-bot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Tests from second stage were triggered manually. Pipeline can be controlled only manually, until HEAD changes. Use command to trigger second stage.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. area/testing Indicates the PR includes changes for e2e testing jira/valid-reference Indicates that this PR references a valid Jira ticket of any type. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants