Skip to content

Navigation Menu

Sign in
Appearance settings

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests...

Provide feedback

We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly
Appearance settings

kubelet: log startup probe failures as Normal events #131373

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
Loading
from
Open

kubelet: log startup probe failures as Normal events #131373

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

aryasoni98
Copy link

Startup probe failures during container startup are expected and should be logged as Normal events rather than Warning events. This is because these failures are part of the normal container startup process and do not indicate a problem that requires operator attention.

This change modifies the prober to: - Log startup probe failures as Normal events - Keep liveness and readiness probe failures as Warning events - Add unit tests to verify the event type behavior

What type of PR is this?

What this PR does / why we need it:

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.:

@aryasoni98
kubelet: log startup probe failures as Normal events
eec6ace 
Startup probe failures during container startup are expected and should be logged as Normal events rather than Warning events. This is because these failures are part of the normal container startup process and do not indicate a problem that requires operator attention.

This change modifies the prober to: - Log startup probe failures as Normal events - Keep liveness and readiness probe failures as Warning events - Add unit tests to verify the event type behavior

Signed-off-by: Arya Soni <aryasoni98@gmail.com>
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. label Apr 18, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Adding the "do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed" label because no release-note block was detected, please follow our release note process to remove it.

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.

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Please note that we're already in Test Freeze for the release-1.33 branch. This means every merged PR will be automatically fast-forwarded via the periodic ci-fast-forward job to the release branch of the upcoming v1.33.0 release.

Fast forwards are scheduled to happen every 6 hours, whereas the most recent run was: Fri Apr 18 13:34:58 UTC 2025.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed Indicates that a PR should not merge because it's missing one of the release note labels. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. do-not-merge/needs-kind Indicates a PR lacks a `kind/foo` label and requires one. do-not-merge/needs-sig Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `sig/foo` label and requires one. needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Apr 18, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @aryasoni98. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

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.

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

This issue is currently awaiting triage.

If a SIG or subproject determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the triage/accepted label and provide further guidance.

The triage/accepted label can be added by org members by writing /triage accepted in a comment.

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.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added needs-triage Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `triage/foo` label and requires one. needs-priority Indicates a PR lacks a `priority/foo` label and requires one. area/kubelet sig/node Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Node. labels Apr 18, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/needs-sig Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `sig/foo` label and requires one. label Apr 18, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot requested review from matthyx and odinuge April 18, 2025 17:54
@matthyx
Copy link
Contributor

matthyx commented Apr 18, 2025

/ok-to-test

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. and removed needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Apr 18, 2025
matthyx
matthyx approved these changes Apr 18, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@matthyx matthyx left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I like the idea!
/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Apr 18, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: e14558ef9eb657a4e4911211201720dc342b4320

TP-O
TP-O reviewed Apr 20, 2025
View reviewed changes
pkg/kubelet/prober/prober.go Show resolved Hide resolved
@bart0sh bart0sh moved this from Triage to Needs Approver in SIG Node: code and documentation PRs Apr 21, 2025
@pacoxu
Copy link
Member

pacoxu commented Apr 27, 2025 •
edited
Loading

It seems to be a behavior change and a bugfix.

  • A release note can make it clear.

/test pull-kubernetes-e2e-kind-ipv6

@aryasoni98 aryasoni98 requested review from matthyx and TP-O May 16, 2025 17:49
@aryasoni98
Copy link
Author

@pacoxu @matthyx I've added the release note and /kind bug label as requested. All tests are passing and feedback has been addressed. If everything looks good, could an approver please review and /approve so this can be merged?

Thank you!

matthyx
matthyx approved these changes May 16, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@matthyx matthyx left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: aryasoni98, matthyx
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign dchen1107 for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

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

@aryasoni98 aryasoni98 requested a review from matthyx May 24, 2025 19:37
@aryasoni98
Copy link
Author

@matthyx @odinuge @TP-O If everything looks good, could you please merge the PR?

@aryasoni98
Copy link
Author

Hey @matthyx @odinuge @TP-O,
If everything looks good, would you mind merging the PR when you get a chance? Thanks a lot! 🙏

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

@odinuge odinuge Awaiting requested review from odinuge

@TP-O TP-O Awaiting requested review from TP-O

@matthyx matthyx Awaiting requested review from matthyx

Assignees

@matthyx matthyx

Labels
area/kubelet cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. do-not-merge/needs-kind Indicates a PR lacks a `kind/foo` label and requires one. do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed Indicates that a PR should not merge because it's missing one of the release note labels. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. needs-priority Indicates a PR lacks a `priority/foo` label and requires one. needs-triage Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `triage/foo` label and requires one. ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. sig/node Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Node. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
SIG Node: code and documentation PRs
Status: Needs Approver
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
5 participants
@aryasoni98 @k8s-ci-robot @matthyx @pacoxu @TP-O
Morty Proxy This is a proxified and sanitized view of the page, visit original site.