[SPARK-59666][K8S] Avoid creating a K8s client when there is no driver pod - #58930
Closed
dongjoon-hyun wants to merge 1 commit into
Closed
dongjoon-hyun wants to merge 1 commit into
dongjoon-hyun wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
uros-b
approved these changes
Sep 21, 2026
Member
|
LGTM, thank you @dongjoon-hyun! |
Member
Author
|
Thank you, @uros-b ! |
dongjoon-hyun
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 21, 2026
…r pod ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This PR aims to check `spark.kubernetes.driver.pod.name` before creating a Kubernetes client in `SparkKubernetesDiagnosticsSetter`, instead of after. ### Why are the changes needed? The driver pod name is required to patch the `spark.exit-exception` annotation, and it is unset in a client deploy mode submission. In that case, the current code creates a Kubernetes client and closes it without patching anything. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No. ### How was this patch tested? Pass the CIs with the newly added test case. ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? Generated-by: Claude Opus 5 Closes #58930 from dongjoon-hyun/SPARK-59666. Authored-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dongjoon@apache.org> Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dongjoon@apache.org> (cherry picked from commit a9cf2c1) Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dongjoon@apache.org>
dongjoon-hyun
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 21, 2026
…r pod ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This PR aims to check `spark.kubernetes.driver.pod.name` before creating a Kubernetes client in `SparkKubernetesDiagnosticsSetter`, instead of after. ### Why are the changes needed? The driver pod name is required to patch the `spark.exit-exception` annotation, and it is unset in a client deploy mode submission. In that case, the current code creates a Kubernetes client and closes it without patching anything. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No. ### How was this patch tested? Pass the CIs with the newly added test case. ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? Generated-by: Claude Opus 5 Closes #58930 from dongjoon-hyun/SPARK-59666. Authored-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dongjoon@apache.org> Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dongjoon@apache.org> (cherry picked from commit a9cf2c1) Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dongjoon@apache.org>
Member
Author
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
This PR aims to check
spark.kubernetes.driver.pod.namebefore creating a Kubernetes client inSparkKubernetesDiagnosticsSetter, instead of after.Why are the changes needed?
The driver pod name is required to patch the
spark.exit-exceptionannotation, and it is unset in a client deploy mode submission. In that case, the current code creates a Kubernetes client and closes it without patching anything.Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No.
How was this patch tested?
Pass the CIs with the newly added test case.
Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
Generated-by: Claude Opus 5