Bug 2097067: pkg/cvo: retain initial completed update history entry#791
Bug 2097067: pkg/cvo: retain initial completed update history entry#791openshift-ci[bot] merged 1 commit intoopenshift:masterfrom
Conversation
openshift-ci
Bot
added
bugzilla/severity-medium
|
@jottofar: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 2097067, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state. The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker. 3 validation(s) were run on this bug
Requesting review from QA contact: DetailsIn 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. |
openshift-ci
Bot
added
the
approved
|
/override ci/prow/golangci-lint |
|
@jottofar: Overrode contexts on behalf of jottofar: ci/prow/golangci-lint DetailsIn 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. |
|
/retest |
|
/test e2e-agnostic-upgrade |
| } | ||
| break | ||
| if config.Status.History[maxHistory].State == configv1.CompletedUpdate { | ||
| item := config.Status.History[maxHistory] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I doubt we will drop MaxHistory below the current 50, but if we do, is it worth teaching this to prefer the oldest >=maxHistory index that's completed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Currently, because pruneStatusHistory gets called each time a new entry is added the history index will never exceed Maxhistory. This could change in the future but most likely if it does it will be part of a more robust history pruning re-do, e.g. implementing our enhancement, which will change things significantly anyway.
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: jottofar, wking The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
Update pod sandboxes and /override ci/prow/e2e-agnostic-upgrade |
|
@wking: Overrode contexts on behalf of wking: ci/prow/e2e-agnostic-upgrade DetailsIn 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. |
|
@jottofar: all tests passed! Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. DetailsInstructions 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. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
|
@jottofar: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged: Bugzilla bug 2097067 has been moved to the MODIFIED state. DetailsIn 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. |
|
/cherry-pick release-4.10 |
|
@sdodson: new pull request created: #798 DetailsIn 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. |
4 participants
which was the intent of 6971c2b. But that change failed to keep the last completed if last completed is at position maxHistory-1. It also did not work for a "prune as you go"
(len(History) == maxHistory+1)strategy which is how the pruner is called by mergeOperatorHistory.