fix: volumeID is incorrent when project name contains alpha/beta/v1

[hoozecn]

What type of PR is this?
/kind bug

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #1302

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change:

Fix: AttachVolume.Attach failed when name of gcp project ends with beta

[k8s-ci-robot]

Welcome @hoozecn!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/gcp-compute-persistent-disk-csi-driver 🎉. 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-sigs/gcp-compute-persistent-disk-csi-driver 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 @hoozecn. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs 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: hoozecn
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign leiyiz 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:

• OWNERS

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

[mattcary]

/ok-to-test

Awesome great find. I'll take a look.

[mattcary]

Can we use net/url to parse the url for real? That will save us the next oops-regexps-are-hard error.

I think log along the lines of the following should be right?

url =url.Parse(selfLink)
if url.Scheme != http return selflink
if url.Host !~ www.*apis.com return selflink
elts := strings.Split(url.path)
if len(elts) > 0 && elts[0] =~ vi|beta|alpha return strings.Join(elts[1:], "/")

If you don't want to make this change I'll do it.

Thanks again for finding this!

[mattcary]

hmm, my pseudocode isn't quite right as the link looks like https://www.googleapis.com/compute/v1/projects/mattcary-gke-dev3/zones/us-central1-a/disks/pvc-6d2dd754-cd70-48c8-9944-ddfa40608585, so the "compute" needs to be removed as well.

Let me back up. Other places assume the volume id is projects/PPP/zones/ZZZ/disks/NNN (or perhaps projects/PPP/region/RRR/disks/NNN). Maybe it's best to extract that rather than trying to fiddle around with the prefix.

I need to audit where else this cleanSelfLink is used, it's possible it's overloaded.

[mattcary]

Hmm, after looking over the code, "cleanSelfLink" is just a really poor way to do what it's trying to do. Let me do a slightly larger refactor instead.

[sunnylovestiramisu]

Can we specify the key word in the test name instead of using 1 and 2? :)

[sunnylovestiramisu]

We can probably refer to the existing regex validation from the GCE side for this string?

[sunnylovestiramisu]

Sorry clicked close by mistake

[mattcary]

I think that #1304 is preferable to this---it has a better chance of fixing the next error we haven't thought of yet :-)

It's still running through the integration tests, which confirm if my idea to parse very strictly is okay.

[hoozecn]

cool. lgtm. closing this one. when would it could be applied to the gke? or is there a maual way to to patch the cluster that i already created? dont want to create another project frankly speaking

I think that #1304 is preferable to this---it has a better chance of fixing the next error we haven't thought of yet :-)

It's still running through the integration tests, which confirm if my idea to parse very strictly is okay.

/

[mattcary]

We should be able to start pushing this out next week, it will take a couple weeks to go out. We should be able to backport to all affected versions. I'll update the timing here (but please ping if I forget).