No functional changes, just cleaning up deprecated usages that are
removed in v2 and replace one call of .Slice with .ForEach to avoid
making the intermediate copy.
* build: update to go1.21
* go: eliminate helpers in favor of min/max
* build: run go mod tidy
* build: swap depguard for semgrep
* command: fixup broken tls error check on go1.21
When calculating the score in the `SpreadIterator`, the score boost is
proportional to the difference between the current and desired count. But when
there are implicit spread targets, the current count is the sum of the possible
implicit targets, which results in incorrect scoring unless there's only one
implicit target.
This changeset updates the `propertySet` struct to accept a set of explicit
target values so it can detect when a property value falls into the implicit set
and should be combined with other implicit values.
Fixes: #11823
Fixes#13505
This fixes#13505 by treating reserved_ports like we treat a lot of jobspec settings: merging settings from more global stanzas (client.reserved.reserved_ports) "down" into more specific stanzas (client.host_networks[].reserved_ports).
As discussed in #13505 there are other options, and since it's totally broken right now we have some flexibility:
Treat overlapping reserved_ports on addresses as invalid and refuse to start agents. However, I'm not sure there's a cohesive model we want to publish right now since so much 0.9-0.12 compat code still exists! We would have to explain to folks that if their -network-interface and host_network addresses overlapped, they could only specify reserved_ports in one place or the other?! It gets ugly.
Use the global client.reserved.reserved_ports value as the default and treat host_network[].reserverd_ports as overrides. My first suggestion in the issue, but @groggemans made me realize the addresses on the agent's interface (as configured by -network-interface) may overlap with host_networks, so you'd need to remove the global reserved_ports from addresses shared with a shared network?! This seemed really confusing and subtle for users to me.
So I think "merging down" creates the most expressive yet understandable approach. I've played around with it a bit, and it doesn't seem too surprising. The only frustrating part is how difficult it is to observe the available addresses and ports on a node! However that's a job for another PR.
This PR enhances the distinct_property constraint such that a limit can
be specified in the RTarget/value parameter. This allows constraints
such as:
```
constraint {
distinct_property = "${meta.rack}"
value = "2"
}
```
This restricts any given rack from running more than 2 allocations from
the task group.
Fixes https://github.com/hashicorp/nomad/issues/1146
