Dangling fix AWS Shield Protections after Ingress are deleted #4042

[Lahutsin]

Issue

Description

This is my first fix contribution. I am open to any discussion to improve my PR's.

DeleteProtection Method:

• The DeleteProtection method now calls DeleteProtectionWithContext to disable the shield protection.
• After disabling the protection, it removes the protection info from the cache using m.protectionInfoByResourceARNCache.Delete(resourceARN).
• It then calls a new method verifyProtectionDeleted to ensure that the protection resource is deleted.

verifyProtectionDeleted Method:

• This method checks if the protection resource is successfully deleted by calling DescribeProtectionWithContext.
• If the protection resource is not found, it means the resource is successfully deleted.
• If the protection resource still exists, it returns an error.

Checklist

• [+] Added tests that cover your change: in protection_manager_test.go

[linux-foundation-easycla]

• ✅ login: Lahutsin / name: Alexander Lahutsin (0b281a2)
• ❌ The email address for the commit (b3a5a35) is not linked to the GitHub account, preventing the EasyCLA check. Consult this Help Article and GitHub Help to resolve. (To view the commit's email address, add .patch at the end of this PR page's URL.) For further assistance with EasyCLA, please submit a support request ticket.

[k8s-ci-robot]

Welcome @Lahutsin!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/aws-load-balancer-controller 🎉. 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/aws-load-balancer-controller 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 @Lahutsin. 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-sigs/prow repository.

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: Lahutsin
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign oliviassss for approval. For more information see the 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

[zac-nixon]

Hi. I am really sorry, but I'm trying to understand what this code change accomplishes. It looks like we are just re-reading the protection result after deletion and throwing an error if the protection still exists. Is the implication here that the delete call is not working?

[Lahutsin]

Hi. I am really sorry, but I'm trying to understand what this code change accomplishes. It looks like we are just re-reading the protection result after deletion and throwing an error if the protection still exists. Is the implication here that the delete call is not working?

Hello. Thank you for your comment! I understand your concerns and suggest discussing this in more detail. For additional context, please refer to the issue discussion Issue 4042.

You are correct in interpreting that the code change involves re-reading the protection result after attempting to delete it and then issuing an error if the protection still exists.

It is implied that the deletion call is not necessarily completely broken, but rather that it might not have been fully executed or reflected at the time of checking the result. Re-reading and error handling are intended to detect situations where the protection should have been deleted but, for some reason (such as propagation delays, API issues, etc.), it was not deleted in a timely manner.

Thus, this code can provide greater reliability and handle edge cases where deletion takes longer than expected or does not work as planned, issuing an error in such cases for a better understanding of what went wrong.

If you have specific suggestions or questions, let's discuss them to find the best solution.

[zac-nixon]

I talked with @shraddhabang about this issue. It looks like the deletion logic is incorrect as we don't tag the resource correctly.