[occm] add tag on floating ip create

[lidongshengxdayu]

What this PR does / why we need it:

In some scenarios, tags are used as resource tags, but occm creates a floating ip without a tag. This PR adds the same tag as the LB when the floating ip created.

Add tag same as LB for floating ip create

[linux-foundation-easycla]

The committers listed above are authorized under a signed CLA.

• ✅ login: lidongshengxdayu (51c738b, a7a5daf, 4319a88, 48ac312, 9180e6d, 0e29ff2, c16cc03, d28309f, 7196a75, f6189ee, 5252b7e)

[k8s-ci-robot]

Welcome @lidongshengxdayu!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes/cloud-provider-openstack 🎉. 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/cloud-provider-openstack 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]

Hi @lidongshengxdayu. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes 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.

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/test-infra repository.

[k8s-ci-robot]

[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 fengyunpan2 for approval. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

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

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• pkg/openstack/OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[dulek]

/ok-to-test

[dulek]

This looks like a sane request to be able to tag the FIPs created by CCM. This needs to handle one more case though:

loadbalancer.openstack.org/keep-floatingip annotation will force CCM to not delete the FIP. In such two cases we should untag the FIP.

While you're on this, be informed that a bunch of other folks are working on resource tagging, @stephenfin and @dd-georgiev.

[dulek]

This is still not untagging FIPs we don't delete properly.

[lidongshengxdayu]

This is still not untagging FIPs we don't delete properly.

it mean that you need to untag it when cancel the association?

[dulek]

See this comment for details: #2577 (comment)

[k8s-triage-robot]

The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all PRs.

This bot triages PRs according to the following rules:

• After 90d of inactivity, lifecycle/stale is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/stale was applied, lifecycle/rotten is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/rotten was applied, the PR is closed

You can:

• Mark this PR as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale
• Close this PR with /close
• Offer to help out with Issue Triage

Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.

/lifecycle stale

[k8s-triage-robot]

The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all PRs.

This bot triages PRs according to the following rules:

• After 90d of inactivity, lifecycle/stale is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/stale was applied, lifecycle/rotten is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/rotten was applied, the PR is closed

You can:

• Mark this PR as fresh with /remove-lifecycle rotten
• Close this PR with /close
• Offer to help out with Issue Triage

Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.

/lifecycle rotten

[kayrus]

/remove-lifecycle rotten
/remove-lifecycle stale

[kayrus]

regarding the conditions logic, I think it makes sense to update it to the pattern below:

        if found && !delete {
                return nil
        }
        
        if delete { 
                DELETE
        }
                
        ADD

UPD: not all openstack deployments have the standard-attr-tag extension enabled. Can you add a check for tags extensions? See

cloud-provider-openstack/pkg/openstack/openstack.go

Lines 466 to 470 in 733195a

	netExts, err := openstackutil.GetNetworkExtensions(ctx, network)
	if err != nil {
	klog.Warningf("Failed to list neutron extensions: %v", err)
	return nil, false
	}

code for example. We can run this check once during the start and keep the bool value in the LoadBalancer struct

[kayrus]

I wonder why do you skip err?

[lidongshengxdayu]

I'm not sure whether returning an error will cause a wider range of logic errors, and I'm not very familiar with the code base.
And tag is optional. I think it should not affect the normal logic of floating ip. Even if an error occurs, it can be checked through the log.
At this position, even if an error occurs and return, the next loop cannot be updated either

[lidongshengxdayu]

If you think this and the add below need to return err, tell me and I will add it.

[kayrus]

@lidongshengxdayu have you considered to change the logic to the suggested pattern? And what about my standard-attr-tag comment? I don't see that the extension check was implemented.

[lidongshengxdayu]

@lidongshengxdayu have you considered to change the logic to the suggested pattern? And what about my standard-attr-tag comment? I don't see that the extension check was implemented.

sorry, eyes are drowning in code.
I've tried to add the standard-attr-tag feature check to the code, unfortunately..., it's been too long since the PR was proposed and I don't have the environment to do this test anymore, so I'm still adding extra code to avoid errors affecting the original logic