Skip to content

fix: validate LowNodeUtilization metrics source#1877

Open
immanuwell wants to merge 1 commit into
kubernetes-sigs:masterfrom
immanuwell:fix-lownodeutilization-metrics-source-validation
Open

fix: validate LowNodeUtilization metrics source#1877
immanuwell wants to merge 1 commit into
kubernetes-sigs:masterfrom
immanuwell:fix-lownodeutilization-metrics-source-validation

Conversation

@immanuwell
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Description

Tiny config validation fix, nothing fancy.

LowNodeUtilization accepted metricsUtilization: {} or a typo'd metricsUtilization.source. That can come straight from policy YAML, since source is just a string; no cloud quota / API ceiling blocks it. Later the plugin trips at runtime with metrics source is empty or unrecognized metrics source.

This catches that during policy validation instead. Legacy metricsServer: true stays valid.

Reproduce

Before the fix, the new table cases returned nil:

go test ./pkg/framework/plugins/nodeutilization -run TestValidateLowNodeUtilizationPluginConfig -count=1

Now they pass, and the wider package suite is clean:

go test ./pkg/...

Related search: #1658 and #1840 are in the same metrics config area, but this does not directly close them.

Checklist

  • Code Readability
  • Naming Conventions
  • Code Duplication
  • Function/Method Size
  • Comments & Documentation
  • Error Handling
  • Testing
  • Performance
  • Dependencies
  • Logging & Monitoring
  • Backward Compatibility
  • Resource Management
  • PR Description
  • Documentation & Changelog

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot requested review from JaneLiuL and a7i May 17, 2026 14:14
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

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

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

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Welcome @immanuwell!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/descheduler 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes-sigs/descheduler has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. label May 17, 2026
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Hi @immanuwell. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs 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.

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.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. labels May 17, 2026
@a7i
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

a7i commented May 17, 2026

/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 May 17, 2026
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

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

Test name Commit Details Required Rerun command
pull-descheduler-test-e2e-k8s-master-1-36 d4e0533 link true /test pull-descheduler-test-e2e-k8s-master-1-36

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR.

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.

@fabiand
Copy link
Copy Markdown

fabiand commented May 19, 2026

@tiraboschi fyi

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Pull request overview

This PR tightens policy-time validation for the LowNodeUtilization plugin’s metricsUtilization configuration so invalid/typo’d metrics source settings fail early instead of surfacing as runtime plugin initialization errors.

Changes:

  • Rejects metricsUtilization: {} when neither metricsUtilization.source nor legacy metricsUtilization.metricsServer is set.
  • Rejects unknown metricsUtilization.source values (anything other than KubernetesMetrics or Prometheus).
  • Adds unit tests covering empty source, unknown source, and legacy metricsServer: true without a source.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

File Description
pkg/framework/plugins/nodeutilization/validation.go Adds early validation for empty/unknown metrics source in LowNodeUtilization args.
pkg/framework/plugins/nodeutilization/validation_test.go Extends table tests to cover the new validation behavior and legacy metricsServer usage.
Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)

pkg/framework/plugins/nodeutilization/validation.go:75

  • MetricsServer is treated as the Kubernetes-metrics path at runtime (see lownodeutilization.go switch: case metrics.MetricsServer, metrics.Source == KubernetesMetrics), but this validation only forbids MetricsServer when Source == KubernetesMetrics. As a result, configs like metricsServer: true combined with source: Prometheus (and/or prometheus: config) pass validation but will silently run with Metrics Server instead of Prometheus. Consider rejecting any non-empty Source and any Prometheus config when MetricsServer is true (or explicitly require Source to be empty when using the legacy flag).
		if args.MetricsUtilization.Source == "" && !args.MetricsUtilization.MetricsServer {
			return fmt.Errorf("metrics source is empty")
		}
		if args.MetricsUtilization.Source != "" && args.MetricsUtilization.Source != api.KubernetesMetrics && args.MetricsUtilization.Source != api.PrometheusMetrics {
			return fmt.Errorf("unrecognized metrics source")
		}
		if args.MetricsUtilization.Source == api.KubernetesMetrics && args.MetricsUtilization.MetricsServer {
			return fmt.Errorf("it is not allowed to set both %q source and metricsServer", api.KubernetesMetrics)
		}
		if args.MetricsUtilization.Source == api.KubernetesMetrics && args.MetricsUtilization.Prometheus != nil {

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Comment on lines +206 to +223
{
name: "legacy metrics server without metrics source",
args: &LowNodeUtilizationArgs{
Thresholds: api.ResourceThresholds{
v1.ResourceCPU: 20,
v1.ResourceMemory: 20,
extendedResource: 20,
},
TargetThresholds: api.ResourceThresholds{
v1.ResourceCPU: 80,
v1.ResourceMemory: 80,
extendedResource: 80,
},
MetricsUtilization: &MetricsUtilization{
MetricsServer: true,
},
},
errInfo: nil,
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants