-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 262
HIVE-2819: Lift upgradeable condition from CVO to cluster deployment label #2639
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
Merged
openshift-merge-bot
merged 1 commit into
openshift:master
from
AlexVulaj:cluster-deployment-labels-upgradeable
Mar 31, 2025
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
I don't want the main comment-stream to get too noisy with the latency issue, so pulling this:
out to this random, unrelated line of code to give it a dedicated thread.
I'm personally not concerned about the latency here, because most of the issues that
Upgradeablecomplains about are long-running, slow-changing issues (like "you're on SDN; migrate to OVN to access 4.17"). So ~hours stale is likely to be still accurate in many cases.And when we miss with a false negative (stale ClusterDeployment data said the update was ok, but turned out ClusterVersion had moved to be
Upgradeable=False), it's not terrible. The user could request an update, and the cluster-version operator would reject the request with whatever theUpgradeable=Falsemessage was. So the cluster is still safe, it's just a bit more of a rug-pull UX. Having fresher data would improve the UX, but would not increase cluster safety.When we miss with a false positive (stale ClusterDeployment data said the update was blocked, but turned out ClusterVersion had moved to be
Upgradeable=Trueor unset theUpgradeablecondition), it's not terrible either. The user's access to the next 4.(y+1) is delayed by an hour or two until the ClusterDeployment catches up. But it's just a feature update, patch updates pulling in bugfixes and CVEs would not be impacted. And users who want to avoid any risk of delay could just get theirUpgradeableducks lined up more than an hour before they were hoping to launch the update (hopefully nobody is actually trying to cut it that close).The gap here is flappy issues like
PoolUpdating, which I dropped in 4.19 (openshift/machine-config-operator#4760), and I'm happy to backport that (and fixes to any other flappyUpgradeableconditions, although I can't think of any offhand) to older 4.y, if stale ClusterDeployment UX impacts turn out to be an issue.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.
Cool. Note that a dummy CD update (like an annotation) could be used to force a resync. That's a thing you can't do through OCM today (that I know of), but would be trivial to implement.