You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
When installing the Infinispan Operator on OpenShift a ConfigMap is created, e.g.: 632512e4.infinispan.org.
Looking at the resource definition, it turns out it's held by the operator controller Pod:
but this resource is not deleted once the operator is uninstalled, despite its holder is.
Infinispan operator version: 2.3.1
channel: 2.3.x
upgrade mode: automatic
can be reproduced easily via the web console: check config maps, install operator, check config maps, uninstall operator, check config maps
This is not a critical issue, since a subsequent install would check for the COnfigMap to exist, and update the holder accordingly, but it would be good to know whether this behavior is expected, since it can be confusing or compromise assertions that rely on initial state (e.g.: 0 config maps -> subscribe -> unsubscribe -> 1 config map while expected 0).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi @fabiobrz. This is the ConfigMap created by the controller-runtime as part of the controller leader election. As the ConfigMap is created at runtime, and needs to survive pod recreation, I'm not sure there's anything the Infinispan Operator can do to better handle this.
There's an open question on the controller-runtime repository about how to automate this, but there's not been much discussion so far: kubernetes-sigs/controller-runtime#2241.
When installing the Infinispan Operator on OpenShift a
ConfigMap
is created, e.g.:632512e4.infinispan.org
.Looking at the resource definition, it turns out it's held by the operator controller Pod:
but this resource is not deleted once the operator is uninstalled, despite its holder is.
This is not a critical issue, since a subsequent install would check for the COnfigMap to exist, and update the holder accordingly, but it would be good to know whether this behavior is expected, since it can be confusing or compromise assertions that rely on initial state (e.g.: 0 config maps -> subscribe -> unsubscribe -> 1 config map while expected 0).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: