Skip to content

pkg/operator Filter out non-MCO CRDs when re-syncing modified MCO CRDs#832

Merged
openshift-merge-robot merged 3 commits intoopenshift:masterfrom
sgreene570:filter-object-changes
Jun 25, 2019
Merged

pkg/operator Filter out non-MCO CRDs when re-syncing modified MCO CRDs#832
openshift-merge-robot merged 3 commits intoopenshift:masterfrom
sgreene570:filter-object-changes

Conversation

@sgreene570
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Fixes #815

- What I did
Following #817, added a label for mco-built-in/crd to MCO CRDs in the manifests/ directory.
Then modified apiExtSharedInformer to filter based on this label.
Tested on an AWS cluster to be working.

- How to verify it
Add logging statements to the enqueue function in pkg/operator/operator.go and watch machine-config-operator pod logs in kube and verify that non-MCO CRDs are not being re-synced (when they don't need to be, as seen in the issue, #815 ).

- Description for the changelog

Filter out object changes not pertaining to MCO when re-syncing MCO CRDs.

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. label Jun 6, 2019
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@kikisdeliveryservice kikisdeliveryservice left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

a couple comments and question

Comment thread pkg/controller/common/controller_context.go Outdated
Comment thread pkg/controller/common/controller_context.go Outdated
Comment thread pkg/controller/common/controller_context.go Outdated
@kikisdeliveryservice
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

aws route 53 errors.

/retest

@sgreene570 sgreene570 force-pushed the filter-object-changes branch from af3213f to 5ccbfcd Compare June 6, 2019 23:54
@sgreene570
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Fixed variable/function naming issues. Trying CI again.
/retest

@kikisdeliveryservice
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

kikisdeliveryservice commented Jun 7, 2019

Just double checking, it seems that this requires settling on the proper label (it will depend on whatever is used here: #817 (comment) ) right @runcom @sgreene570 ?

@runcom
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

runcom commented Jun 7, 2019

Just double checking, it seems that this requires settling on the proper label (it will depend on whatever is used here: #817 (comment) ) right @runcom @sgreene570 ?

yep, correct, I will follow up on that.

@sgreene570
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

/retest

@sgreene570
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

strange timeout / monitoring CI errors, trying again.
/retest

@kikisdeliveryservice
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

etcd-quorum-loss is very flaky, so I wouldn't bother retesting for that one @sgreene570

@sgreene570 sgreene570 closed this Jun 10, 2019
@sgreene570 sgreene570 reopened this Jun 10, 2019
@kikisdeliveryservice
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

/skip

@kikisdeliveryservice
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

putting a hold, since it's pending #817 (comment) resolution

/hold

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Jun 11, 2019
Comment thread pkg/controller/common/controller_context.go Outdated
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

still ongoing here #817 (comment)

@sgreene570 sgreene570 force-pushed the filter-object-changes branch from 5ccbfcd to 33c9df6 Compare June 13, 2019 23:12
@sgreene570
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

/test e2e-aws-upgrade

@sgreene570 sgreene570 force-pushed the filter-object-changes branch 2 times, most recently from ae3c504 to e5eeb94 Compare June 20, 2019 18:06
@sgreene570
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Applied the proper label from #817 and rebased.

@runcom
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

runcom commented Jun 25, 2019

/approve
/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. labels Jun 25, 2019
@kikisdeliveryservice
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@runcom I saw that you lgtm'ed but didnt lift the hold on this PR. also #817 still has a hold. are we waiting for that to merge first then?

@runcom
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

runcom commented Jun 25, 2019

@runcom I saw that you lgtm'ed but didnt lift the hold on this PR. also #817 still has a hold. are we waiting for that to merge first then?

I oversaw the hold, we can lift it here and I'll lift it in my other PR once I get back to that 👍

/hold cancel

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Jun 25, 2019
@kikisdeliveryservice
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

/retest

@kikisdeliveryservice
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@sgreene570 i think you might want to rebase to pick up the latest changes in the repo. i suspect this is why pr is failing.

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

openshift-ci-robot commented Jun 25, 2019

@sgreene570: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun them all:

Test name Commit Details Rerun command
ci/prow/e2e-etcd-quorum-loss 5ccbfcd2bb21d76e17732dee8aab045fd971b055 link /test e2e-etcd-quorum-loss

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR.

Details

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. I understand the commands that are listed here.

@sgreene570 sgreene570 force-pushed the filter-object-changes branch from e5eeb94 to 26291bd Compare June 25, 2019 20:08
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jun 25, 2019
@kikisdeliveryservice
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@sgreene570 i think you might want to rebase to pick up the latest changes in the repo. i suspect this is why pr is failing.

Rebase did the trick, PR is now past the build errors

/LGTM

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jun 25, 2019
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: kikisdeliveryservice, runcom, sgreene570

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Details Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
  • OWNERS [kikisdeliveryservice,runcom]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit 0ebe474 into openshift:master Jun 25, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

filter out objects changes in MCO

5 participants