[worker-manager] enforce same character restrictions in queue and worker-manager
Categories
(Taskcluster :: Services, enhancement)
Tracking
(Not tracked)
People
(Reporter: dustin, Assigned: dustin)
References
Details
worker-manager has a restricted character set for the workerType
portion of its workerTypeName
property. Comments indicate that this is intended to be broadly compatible with various cloud providers, which seems pretty reasonable.
If we're happy with those character limits, we should probably enforce them in the queue as well, so that we do not create tasks or queues for workerTypes that worker-manager cannot manage.
We should do this while we can still easily determine the full set of workerTypes deployed in Taskcluster (at the moment, I think they all satisfy this format). However, we could wait until we're happy enough with the workerTypeName
property to extend it to the queue, and change the character restrictions at that time.
Updated•6 years ago
|
Assignee | ||
Updated•6 years ago
|
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•6 years ago
|
||
We do have some workerTypes that violate this pattern, but they're all used internally for testing:
...
no-provisioning-nope/t9kjwsukTuyDdcn0wklR4A
no-provisioning-nope/vFdaQUk1RCSoMiOLTxRU0Q
test-dummy-provisioner/dummy-worker-AVgr2w
test-dummy-provisioner/dummy-worker-HAvSMM
...
The first is from docker-worker tests. I can't figure out what uses the second -- I only see test-dummy-provisioner
in the tc-worker tests, but that project is archived. The queue's data doesn't have any tasks for any of those workers. So, I guess we'll see those when the tests break, and pick new names at that point :)
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•6 years ago
|
||
Comment 3•6 years ago
|
||
We use the latter in scriptworker integration tests. What should we use?
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•6 years ago
|
||
Ah, thanks! I did look in that repo but didn't find that line. it just needs to restrict the characters a little.
Something like
randstring = slugid.nice().lower().replace('_', '').replace('-', '')[:6]
should do the trick.
Comment 5•6 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Updated•6 years ago
|
Comment 6•6 years ago
|
||
generic-worker is also impacted by this change:
https://travis-ci.org/taskcluster/generic-worker/jobs/575746979#L2944
We'll need a similar fix.
Comment 7•6 years ago
|
||
Updated•6 years ago
|
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•6 years ago
|
||
BTW I think the reason I missed this is that I looked at active workers, and generic-worker CI hadn't run in a while, so all of its workers had expired. Sorry about that!
Description
•