Skip to content

Bug 1669300 - Fixing provider name of operators #1235

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
openshift-merge-robot merged 1 commit into from
Mar 7, 2019
Merged

Bug 1669300 - Fixing provider name of operators #1235

openshift-merge-robot merged 1 commit into from
Mar 7, 2019

Conversation

@gallettilance
Copy link
Contributor

@gallettilance gallettilance commented Feb 27, 2019 •
edited
Loading

alecmerdler
alecmerdler approved these changes Feb 27, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@alecmerdler alecmerdler 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-robot openshift-ci-robot added the size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. label Feb 27, 2019
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Feb 27, 2019
@gallettilance gallettilance changed the title Fixing provider name of operators Bug 1669300 - Fixing provider name of operators Feb 27, 2019
@spadgett
Copy link
Member

spadgett commented Feb 27, 2019

/retest

@gallettilance gallettilance changed the title Bug 1669300 - Fixing provider name of operators [WIP] Bug 1669300 - Fixing provider name of operators Feb 27, 2019
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Feb 27, 2019
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Feb 27, 2019
@gallettilance gallettilance changed the title [WIP] Bug 1669300 - Fixing provider name of operators Bug 1669300 - Fixing provider name of operators Feb 27, 2019
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Feb 27, 2019
@gallettilance
Copy link
Contributor Author

gallettilance commented Feb 27, 2019

Realized provider was in status of packagemanifest not in metadata. Could I get an lgtm again @alecmerdler @jeff-phillips-18 @spadgett ?

Side Note: why is the provider label in metadata different from the provider name in status @alecmerdler ?

@alecmerdler
Copy link
Contributor

alecmerdler commented Feb 27, 2019

@galletti94 The status.provider is mapped from the CSV spec.provider (code). The metadata.labels are simply copied from the CatalogSource (code).

alecmerdler
alecmerdler approved these changes Feb 27, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@alecmerdler alecmerdler 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-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Feb 27, 2019
@gallettilance
Copy link
Contributor Author

gallettilance commented Feb 27, 2019

/retest

4 similar comments
@gallettilance
Copy link
Contributor Author

gallettilance commented Feb 27, 2019

/retest

@spadgett
Copy link
Member

spadgett commented Feb 28, 2019

/retest

@spadgett
Copy link
Member

spadgett commented Feb 28, 2019

/retest

@spadgett
Copy link
Member

spadgett commented Feb 28, 2019

/retest

@jhadvig
Copy link
Member

jhadvig commented Feb 28, 2019 •
edited
Loading

Test failuer:

NoSuchElementError: No element found using locator: by.cssContainingText(".co-resource-list__item", "etcd")

/test console-e2e

@spadgett
Copy link
Member

spadgett commented Feb 28, 2019 

NoSuchElementError: Index out of bound. Trying to access element at index: 0, but there are only 0 elements that match locator By(css selector, .catalog-tile-pf)

/retest

@spadgett
Copy link
Member

spadgett commented Feb 28, 2019 

level=error msg="1 error occurred:"
level=error msg="\t* module.vpc.aws_route.to_nat_gw[5]: 1 error occurred:"
level=error msg="\t* aws_route.to_nat_gw.5: Error creating route: timeout while waiting for state to become 'success' (timeout: 2m0s)"

/retest

@gallettilance
Copy link
Contributor Author

gallettilance commented Feb 28, 2019

/retest

1 similar comment
@spadgett
Copy link
Member

spadgett commented Feb 28, 2019

/retest

@spadgett
Copy link
Member

spadgett commented Feb 28, 2019

/retest

@spadgett
Copy link
Member

spadgett commented Feb 28, 2019 

NoSuchElementError: Index out of bound. Trying to access element at index: 0, but there are only 0 elements that match locator By(css selector, .catalog-tile-pf)

/retest

@spadgett
Copy link
Member

spadgett commented Feb 28, 2019

/retest

@jhadvig
Copy link
Member

jhadvig commented Mar 1, 2019

install error
/retest

@spadgett
Copy link
Member

spadgett commented Mar 1, 2019

/retest

1 similar comment
@gallettilance
Copy link
Contributor Author

gallettilance commented Mar 1, 2019

/retest

@spadgett
Copy link
Member

spadgett commented Mar 1, 2019

@galletti94 can you confirm that the OLM tests pass locally for you?

@gallettilance
Copy link
Contributor Author

gallettilance commented Mar 4, 2019

@spadgett all tests pass for me locally

@gallettilance
Copy link
Contributor Author

gallettilance commented Mar 4, 2019

/retest

2 similar comments
@gallettilance
Copy link
Contributor Author

gallettilance commented Mar 5, 2019

/retest

@gallettilance
Copy link
Contributor Author

gallettilance commented Mar 5, 2019

/retest

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Mar 5, 2019
SamiSousa
SamiSousa approved these changes Mar 5, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link

@SamiSousa SamiSousa 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-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Mar 5, 2019
@gallettilance
Copy link
Contributor Author

gallettilance commented Mar 6, 2019

/retest

@gallettilance
Copy link
Contributor Author

gallettilance commented Mar 6, 2019

Waiting on #1255 to merge

@spadgett
Copy link
Member

spadgett commented Mar 7, 2019

/retest

1 similar comment
@spadgett
Copy link
Member

spadgett commented Mar 7, 2019

/retest

@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit c40d0c5 into openshift:master Mar 7, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@jeff-phillips-18 jeff-phillips-18 jeff-phillips-18 approved these changes

@spadgett spadgett Awaiting requested review from spadgett

+2 more reviewers

@SamiSousa SamiSousa SamiSousa approved these changes

@alecmerdler alecmerdler alecmerdler approved these changes

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

@SamiSousa SamiSousa

@alecmerdler alecmerdler

Labels

lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files.

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants

@gallettilance @spadgett @alecmerdler @jhadvig @SamiSousa @jeff-phillips-18 @openshift-ci-robot @openshift-merge-robot