Skip to content

fix(sidecar-controller): retry conflict when clearing content status#1405

Open
TOGEP wants to merge 1 commit intokubernetes-csi:masterfrom
TOGEP:fix/sidecar-controller-conflict-retry
Open

fix(sidecar-controller): retry conflict when clearing content status#1405
TOGEP wants to merge 1 commit intokubernetes-csi:masterfrom
TOGEP:fix/sidecar-controller-conflict-retry

Conversation

@TOGEP
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@TOGEP TOGEP commented Mar 30, 2026

What type of PR is this?

Uncomment only one /kind <> line, hit enter to put that in a new line, and remove leading whitespaces from that line:

/kind api-change

/kind bug

/kind cleanup
/kind design
/kind documentation
/kind failing-test
/kind feature
/kind flake

What this PR does / why we need it:
This PR adds RetryOnConflict handling to the sidecar delete flow.

Specifically, it ensures that clearing VolumeSnapshotContent status
after CSI delete succeeds is retried on transient conflicts.

Changes include:

  • clearVolumeContentStatus now uses retry.RetryOnConflict.
  • Re-fetch the latest VolumeSnapshotContent on each retry before calling UpdateStatus.

Tests:

  • Updated delete sync tests in pkg/sidecar-controller/snapshot_delete_test.go.
  • Added case 1-3b to verify that a transient UpdateStatus conflict is retried and eventually succeeds.
  • Conflict injection uses Kubernetes conflict errors (apierrors.NewConflict) to align with RetryOnConflict behavior.
  • Added inline comment clarifying expected finalizer removal after status clear succeeds in the delete-policy flow.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Related to #748

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

NONE

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug. labels Mar 30, 2026
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: TOGEP
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign jingxu97 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 k8s-ci-robot added the needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. label Mar 30, 2026
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Hi @TOGEP. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-csi 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 size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. labels Mar 30, 2026
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. kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug. needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. 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.

2 participants