Repository navigation
test(job): add SPS deploy and inspect integration test - #6641
agrawalkhushi18 wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
Summary of ChangesHello, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request introduces automated integration testing for the GCluster Shared Pathways Service (SPS). The changes include a new validation playbook that performs a dry-run, deploys an SPS instance, verifies its readiness, and confirms that the inspection filter correctly reports the job status. These tests have been added to the daily test suites for various TPU configurations to ensure ongoing stability of the SPS workflow. Highlights
Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize the Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counterproductive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for GitHub and other Google products, sign up here. Footnotes
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request introduces a new Ansible playbook (test-gcluster-job-sps.yml) to validate the GCluster Shared Pathways Service (SPS) workflow, covering dry-run validation, deployment, and inspection. This test is integrated into the daily post-deploy test suites for GKE TPU v5e, v5p, and v6e. Feedback on the playbook suggests simplifying the log retrieval process by using kubectl logs -l with a label selector instead of a multi-step shell pipeline involving kubectl get pod with jsonpath to avoid potential errors.
| ansible.builtin.shell: | | ||
| set -eo pipefail | ||
| HEAD_POD=$(kubectl get pod -l jobset.sigs.k8s.io/jobset-name={{ sps_job_name }},jobset.sigs.k8s.io/replicatedjob-name=pathways-head -o jsonpath='{.items[0].metadata.name}') | ||
| kubectl logs "${HEAD_POD}" -c pathways-rm | grep -E "[0-9]+/[0-9]+ Pathways Slices Now Ready" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Instead of querying the pod name using kubectl get pod with jsonpath and then passing it to kubectl logs, you can stream the logs directly using a label selector with kubectl logs -l. This simplifies the shell script, avoids potential errors when no pods are returned, and aligns with the general best practice of avoiding noisy jsonpath queries on empty/missing resources.
ansible.builtin.shell: |
set -eo pipefail
kubectl logs -l jobset.sigs.k8s.io/jobset-name={{ sps_job_name }},jobset.sigs.k8s.io/replicatedjob-name=pathways-head -c pathways-rm | grep -E "[0-9]+/[0-9]+ Pathways Slices Now Ready"References
- When executing
kubectlcommands to inspect optional fields on Kubernetes resources, avoid noisy and misleading warnings/errors fromjsonpathwhen resources are missing or empty.
5e19ec3 to
bc2d44a
Compare
Summary
Adds an end-to-end integration test (
test-gcluster-job-sps.yml) for Shared Pathways Service (SPS) deployment (--pathways-deploy-sps) and inspection (gcluster job inspect --filter pathways-sps), wired intogke-tpu-v5e,gke-tpu-v5p, andgke-tpu-v6e.Changes
test-gcluster-job-sps.yml:--pathways-deploy-spsJobSet manifest structure, env vars, and restart/backoff defaults.gcluster job inspect --filter pathways-sps --showoutput (Status: Running, endpoint, and slice readiness), and cleans up viagcluster job cancel.tests/gke-tpu-v5e.yml,gke-tpu-v5p.yml,gke-tpu-v6e.yml: Addstest-validation/test-gcluster-job-sps.ymltopost_deploy_tests.Submission Checklist
NOTE: Community submissions can take up to 2 weeks to be reviewed.
Please take the following actions before submitting this pull request.