Remove Docker from BasicRayTestCase #840
Conversation
DmitriGekhtman
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Removing the NodePort setup from these tests is a good idea.
We should make a note (issue) to have a dedicate test of Ray client, though.
Using a ClusterIP service and port-forwarding works reliably in the Ray CI, see
https://github.com/ray-project/ray/blob/d2e1ed6e70bfcf6ca355c1d0afbffe355b498405/python/ray/tests/kuberay/test_autoscaling_e2e.py#L329-L332
|
I remember @brucez-anyscale mentioned before that port-forwarding in kind might fail. |
|
Perhaps it depends on the particular setup, but I have never seen Ray client port-forwarding fail in the Ray CI -- the particular test I've linked passes very consistently. |
|
I pingged Bruce offline and see if he can make some comments here later. @brucez-anyscale |
QQ: why do we need to use port-forwarding when we have ClusterIP? In my understanding, we can create a Pod to communicate with the head Pod via ClusterIP directly. |
That would work fine as well. |
Use kubectl exec in place of complicated NodePort setup in BasicRayTestCase.
Why are these changes needed?
Currently, some tests create docker containers to communicate with Kubernetes via a NodePort service. It is complex and unstable. Hence, this PR executes commands in the head Pod via
kubectl execinstead of creating a docker container. See #764 for more details.Related issue number
Part of #764
Checks