-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 333
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
Let payload provider render feature gate yaml #2664
Let payload provider render feature gate yaml #2664
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just one comment, but if it fixes the current issue, we can definitely follow up.
@@ -437,7 +437,7 @@ func reconcileDeployment(deployment *appsv1.Deployment, | |||
}, | |||
Args: []string{ | |||
"-c", | |||
invokeFeatureGateRenderScript("/shared", releaseVersion, string(featureGateYAML)), | |||
invokeFeatureGateRenderScript("/shared", string(featureGateYAML)), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If all this container is doing is writing out the feature gate yaml, we can likely do without it. The local ignition provider could read the hcp directly and create the yaml.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Makes sense, I'm wanting to keep this PR scope to the minimum.
In follow up we can also consider to let the NodePool controller store the featureGate yaml into the token secret so then we just pass it through the getPayload signature.
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: csrwng, enxebre 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:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
/hold |
7c2cc5e
to
9126c6c
Compare
cluster config operator script failed with
and
|
aab9280
to
ae768a3
Compare
|
b1cc626
to
31a5d2a
Compare
✅ Deploy Preview for hypershift-docs ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site settings. |
we are back to only upgrade failing, now with
|
This looks like a mismatch between the payload version and the flags, is the test upgrading from a 4.14 to 4.14 or from 4.13 to 4.14? If it is upgrading from 4.13, we need to make sure it only passes the |
482658f
to
07d031b
Compare
%[1]s render \ | ||
--config-output-file config \ | ||
--asset-input-dir %[2]s/input \ | ||
--asset-output-dir %[2]s/output |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
don't we need to pass --payload-version
here ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
no, only for >= 4.14
lgtm |
Ignore, this should make no difference as this cpo is not running there. |
/lgtm |
/hold cancel |
Currently we render the feature gate at the HCP level which results in a discrepancy when mco consume it along with a given NodePool payload-version that differs from the one used by the HCP to generate it. Related openshift#2643 CI Failure example bootstrap.go:47] error running MCC[BOOTSTRAP]: error creating feature gate access: unable to determine features: missing desired version \"4.14.0-0.ci.test-2023-06-08-101141-ci-op-gvin17ww-initial\" in featuregates.config.openshift.io/cluster\n"} https://prow.ci.openshift.org/view/gs/origin-ci-test/pr-logs/pull/openshift_machine-config-operator/3724/pull-ci-openshift-machine-config-operator-master-e2e-hypershift/1666749702499995648 https://gcsweb-ci.apps.ci.l2s4.p1.openshiftapps.com/gcs/origin-ci-test/pr-logs/pull/openshift_machine-config-operator/3724/pull-ci-openshift-machine-config-operator-master-e2e-hypershift/1666749702499995648/artifacts/e2e-hypershift/run-e2e/artifacts/TestNodePool_PreTeardownClusterDump/namespaces/e2e-clusters-wvxmd-example-fmxk8/core/pods/logs/ignition-server-768699fd7b-w49lq-ignition-server.log
07d031b
to
8093e27
Compare
New changes are detected. LGTM label has been removed. |
rebased to pick Red Hat Trusted App Pipeline CI fix |
@enxebre: you cannot LGTM your own PR. In response to this:
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. |
/test e2e-aws |
/test images |
Currently we render the feature gate at the HCP level which results in a discrepancy when mco consume it along with a given NodePool payload-version that differs from the one used by the HCP to generate it. Related #2643
CI Failure example
bootstrap.go:47] error running MCC[BOOTSTRAP]: error creating feature gate access: unable to determine features: missing desired version "4.14.0-0.ci.test-2023-06-08-101141-ci-op-gvin17ww-initial" in featuregates.config.openshift.io/cluster\n"}
https://prow.ci.openshift.org/view/gs/origin-ci-test/pr-logs/pull/openshift_machine-config-operator/3724/pull-ci-openshift-machine-config-operator-master-e2e-hypershift/1666749702499995648
https://gcsweb-ci.apps.ci.l2s4.p1.openshiftapps.com/gcs/origin-ci-test/pr-logs/pull/openshift_machine-config-operator/3724/pull-ci-openshift-machine-config-operator-master-e2e-hypershift/1666749702499995648/artifacts/e2e-hypershift/run-e2e/artifacts/TestNodePool_PreTeardownClusterDump/namespaces/e2e-clusters-wvxmd-example-fmxk8/core/pods/logs/ignition-server-768699fd7b-w49lq-ignition-server.log
What this PR does / why we need it:
Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, use
fixes #<issue_number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)
format, where issue_number might be a GitHub issue, or a Jira story:Fixes #
Checklist