Skip to content

fix: provision volumes in the correct location with enableProvidedByTopology#1434

Open
lukasmetzner wants to merge 2 commits into
mainfrom
fix/volume-location-provided-by-topology
Open

fix: provision volumes in the correct location with enableProvidedByTopology#1434
lukasmetzner wants to merge 2 commits into
mainfrom
fix/volume-location-provided-by-topology

Conversation

@lukasmetzner

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

When enableProvidedByTopology is enabled, the generated StorageClass only
carries the instance.hetzner.cloud/provided-by topology segment. Without
--strict-topology the external-provisioner uses allowedTopologies as the
requisite topology and drops the selected node's csi.hetzner.cloud/location,
so the controller fell back to the controller pod's location and provisioned
volumes in the wrong place, leaving pods unschedulable.

Fixes #1428

…opology

When enableProvidedByTopology is enabled, the generated StorageClass only
carries the `instance.hetzner.cloud/provided-by` topology segment. Without
`--strict-topology` the external-provisioner uses allowedTopologies as the
requisite topology and drops the selected node's `csi.hetzner.cloud/location`,
so the controller fell back to the controller pod's location and provisioned
volumes in the wrong place, leaving pods unschedulable.

Fixes #1428
@codecov

codecov Bot commented Jul 16, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 73.91%. Comparing base (a9921fc) to head (44f5fa0).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1434      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   75.13%   73.91%   -1.22%     
==========================================
  Files          17       17              
  Lines        1520     1526       +6     
==========================================
- Hits         1142     1128      -14     
- Misses        293      309      +16     
- Partials       85       89       +4     
Flag Coverage Δ
e2e-controller 59.56% <28.57%> (-1.56%) ⬇️
e2e-node 59.56% <28.57%> (-1.56%) ⬇️
integration 3.17% <0.00%> (-0.02%) ⬇️
unit 41.02% <100.00%> (+0.16%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@lukasmetzner
lukasmetzner marked this pull request as ready for review July 17, 2026 09:25
@lukasmetzner
lukasmetzner requested a review from a team as a code owner July 17, 2026 09:25

@jooola jooola left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I cannot really vet the behavior change in the code, but otherwise looks good.

Comment thread internal/driver/controller.go Outdated
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

enableProvidedByTopology can provision volumes in the wrong location

2 participants