Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Properly remove the service container during kube down #18086

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 7, 2023

Conversation

umohnani8
Copy link
Member

Ensure that we are actually looking up the service container ID and actually removing it during kube teardown for the --wait use case. This ensures that we don't have a service container waiting around in removing state before we return from kube play in the remote case.

Should fix #17803

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

None

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added release-note-none approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. labels Apr 6, 2023
@umohnani8
Copy link
Member Author

@vrothberg PTAL

Copy link
Member

@vrothberg vrothberg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Apr 6, 2023

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: umohnani8, vrothberg

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

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
  • OWNERS [umohnani8,vrothberg]

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

@umohnani8 umohnani8 force-pushed the detach branch 2 times, most recently from 06cdef7 to 95eceb7 Compare April 6, 2023 15:48
@rhatdan
Copy link
Member

rhatdan commented Apr 6, 2023

LGTM
Other then the tests failing.

Ensure that we are actually looking up the service container
ID and actually removing it during kube teardown for the --wait
use case. This ensures that we don't have a service container waiting
around in removing state before we return from kube play in the remote
case.

[NO NEW TESTS NEEDED]

Signed-off-by: Urvashi Mohnani <[email protected]>
@mheon
Copy link
Member

mheon commented Apr 7, 2023

/lgtm
/hold

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Apr 7, 2023
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Apr 7, 2023
@TomSweeneyRedHat
Copy link
Member

LGTM and happy green test buttons.
Kicking it down the road.

@TomSweeneyRedHat
Copy link
Member

/hold cancel

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Apr 7, 2023
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit 960eab1 into containers:main Apr 7, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot added the locked - please file new issue/PR Assist humans wanting to comment on an old issue or PR with locked comments. label Sep 2, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 2, 2023
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. locked - please file new issue/PR Assist humans wanting to comment on an old issue or PR with locked comments. release-note-none
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

kube play --wait test: looks like a race
6 participants