CRD updates for the oc CLI fields for the NAR, NAB and NABSL objects by mpryc · Pull Request #1648 · openshift/oadp-operator

mpryc · 2025-02-28T10:56:49Z

Needed-by: migtools/oadp-non-admin#245

Implements migtools/oadp-non-admin#232 with additional fields for:

NonAdminBackup
NonAdminRestore
NonAdminBackupStorageLocation

Why the changes were made

migtools/oadp-non-admin#232 and add similar fields for the NAB and NAR objects.

How to test the changes made

Deployed with local oadp-operator deployment
Tested various objects and it's states:

Prior admin approval or rejections

Created couple of BSLs - names reflect the idea behind each of them

suspicious-nabsl (reject)
nonexistingsecretinns-nabsl (do nothing - no nabslrequest)
waitingapproval-nabsl (do nothing)
incorrect-bucket-nabsl (approve)
perfect-nabsl (approve)

Before any admin action:

$ oc get nabsl -n non-admin-bsl-test
NAME                          REQUEST-APPROVED   REQUEST-PHASE  VELERO-PHASE       AGE
incorrect-bucket-nabsl        False              New                               2m11s
nonexistingsecretinns-nabsl                      BackingOff                        39s
perfect-nabsl                 False              New                               2m40s
suspicious-sample             False              New                               10s
waitingapproval-nabsl         False              New                               94s

Note the nonexistingsecretinns-nabsl have not created request - the user must create secret to get to that state

$ oc get nabslrequest
NAME                                                              REQUEST-PHASE   REQUEST-NAMESPACE     REQUEST-NAME
non-admin-bsl-test-incorre-9aa22872-f39d-427c-b352-6924ff9c2175   Pending         non-admin-bsl-test    incorrect-bucket-nabsl
non-admin-bsl-test-perfect-4413c67d-8eb8-42bc-8274-279a91895196   Pending         non-admin-bsl-test    perfect-nabsl
non-admin-bsl-test-suspici-4fbdcebf-2277-4f44-890e-35d765815e1a   Pending         non-admin-bsl-test    suspicious-sample
non-admin-bsl-test-waiting-fcae28c2-d8ea-48e2-a35c-8882bfd865e0   Pending         non-admin-bsl-test    waitingapproval-nabsl

Approving or rejecting some:

$ oc get nabslrequest
NAME                                                              REQUEST-PHASE   REQUEST-NAMESPACE     REQUEST-NAME               AGE
non-admin-bsl-test-incorre-9aa22872-f39d-427c-b352-6924ff9c2175   Approved        non-admin-bsl-test    incorrect-bucket-nabsl    4m57s
non-admin-bsl-test-perfect-4413c67d-8eb8-42bc-8274-279a91895196   Approved        non-admin-bsl-test    perfect-nabsl             5m26s
non-admin-bsl-test-suspici-4fbdcebf-2277-4f44-890e-35d765815e1a   Rejected        non-admin-bsl-test    suspicious-sample         2m56s
non-admin-bsl-test-waiting-fcae28c2-d8ea-48e2-a35c-8882bfd865e0   Pending         non-admin-bsl-test    waitingapproval-nabsl     4m20s

Now the NABSL objects

$ oc get nabsl -n non-admin-bsl-test
NAME                          REQUEST-APPROVED   REQUEST-PHASE   VELERO-PHASE   AGE
incorrect-bucket-nabsl        True               Created         Unavailable    8m25s
nonexistingsecretinns-nabsl                      BackingOff                     6m53s
perfect-nabsl                 True               Created         Available      8m54s
suspicious-sample             False              BackingOff                     6m24s
waitingapproval-nabsl         False              New                            7m48s

Backup

Couple of backup objects were created

$ oc get nab -n non-admin-bsl-test
NAME                       REQUEST-PHASE   VELERO-PHASE       AGE
backup-failed-sample       Created         PartiallyFailed    6s
incorrect-bsl-backup       BackingOff                         3m39s
some-backup                Created         Completed          13s

Restore

Nice InProgress and Completed status:

$ oc get nar -n non-admin-bsl-test
NAME               REQUEST-PHASE   VELERO-PHASE   AGE
non-existing-nab   BackingOff                     46s

$ oc get nar -n non-admin-bsl-test
NAME               REQUEST-PHASE   VELERO-PHASE   AGE
existing-nab       Created         InProgress     1s
non-existing-nab   BackingOff                     51s

$ oc get nar -n non-admin-bsl-test
NAME               REQUEST-PHASE   VELERO-PHASE   AGE
existing-nab       Created         Completed      3s
non-existing-nab   BackingOff                     53s

shubham-pampattiwar · 2025-03-05T20:11:20Z

@mpryc Would the non-admin user get confused between the columns backup-status and status and similarly for restores and bsls ?

weshayutin · 2025-03-05T21:03:59Z

@mpryc Would the non-admin user get confused between the columns backup-status and status and similarly for restores and bsls ?

hrm.. I like the way you are thinking but IMHO naming things is hard. Do you have a more clear term? Docs can handle the differences. This is a very nice update for ease of use and transparency to users.

mpryc · 2025-03-05T21:09:21Z

we could have BACKUP-STATUS and CRD-STATUS ?

shubham-pampattiwar · 2025-03-05T21:34:31Z

@weshayutin @mpryc How about these alternatives:

BACKUP-STATUS --> VELERO-STATUS OR BACKUP-PHASE OR PHASE
STATUS --> REQUEST-STATUS OR PROCESSING STATUS

kaovilai · 2025-03-05T21:34:35Z

Do you have a more clear term?

Yes I do. Velero Status and NA<C/B/R> Status

kaovilai · 2025-03-05T21:35:28Z

CRD-STATUS does not help. It does not tell user where signals came from.

User want to know if a status column belongs to NAC or Velero.

weshayutin · 2025-03-05T21:47:42Z

CRD-STATUS does not help. It does not tell user where signals came from.

User want to know if a status column belongs to NAC or Velero.

I think what Tiger is saying makes a lot of sense. NOW PLEASE NEVER MAKE ME SAY THAT AGAIN.

shubham-pampattiwar · 2025-03-05T21:57:23Z

just use PHASE instead of STATUS ?

VELERO-BACKUP-PHASE and NAB-PHASE or just PHASE

Note: I don't know how popular our CR shortname (NAB/NAR) would be and the UX of using it in printer column, I am ok with either NAB-PHASE or just PHASE

kaovilai · 2025-03-05T23:33:27Z

If shorter = better then my final suggestion is

Phase for nac orignated phases
Velero for velero CR originated status/phase

mpryc · 2025-03-06T17:56:07Z

After reading all the comments above and suggestions.

Proposed Naming Convention:

Object	Current Column	Proposed Change
NABSL	STATUS	NAC-PHASE
NABSL	BSL-STATUS	VELERO-PHASE
NAB	STATUS	NAC-PHASE
NAB	BACKUP-STATUS	VELERO-PHASE
NAR	STATUS	NAC-PHASE
NAR	RESTORE-STATUS	VELERO-PHASE

weshayutin · 2025-03-14T00:38:19Z

/retest-required

openshift-ci · 2025-03-14T04:09:30Z

@mpryc: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name	Commit	Details	Required	Rerun command
ci/prow/4.15-e2e-test-kubevirt-aws	`c0d412f`	link	true	`/test 4.15-e2e-test-kubevirt-aws`
ci/prow/4.17-e2e-test-aws	`c0d412f`	link	true	`/test 4.17-e2e-test-aws`

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

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-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

mpryc · 2025-03-14T13:59:18Z

Are we set on the names ?
If those are ok I will update PR: #1648 (comment)

shubham-pampattiwar · 2025-03-14T17:04:44Z

Are we set on the names ? If those are ok I will update PR: #1648 (comment)

IMO
Key changes:

dropped NAC prefix as the column is on NAC object so not needed
VELERO <-> VELERO-OBJ as VELERO in most cases means the controller

Object	Current Column	Proposed Change
NABSL	STATUS	PHASE
NABSL	BSL-STATUS	VELERO-OBJ-PHASE
NAB	STATUS	PHASE
NAB	BACKUP-STATUS	VELERO-OBJ-PHASE
NAR	STATUS	PHASE
NAR	RESTORE-STATUS	VELERO-OBJ-PHASE

mpryc · 2025-03-16T20:44:46Z

@shubham-pampattiwar I think the VELERO-OBJ-PHASE might be overkill, I know the VELERO-PHASE is not extremely precise, but our context already makes it clear that this refers to the phase of a Velero-managed object, adding -OBJ feels redundant ??

mpryc · 2025-03-16T20:49:59Z

We could think of user and then we could have "Request vs. Execution" naming:

Object	Current Column	Proposed Change
NABSL	STATUS	REQUEST-PHASE
NABSL	BSL-STATUS	PHASE
NAB	STATUS	REQUEST-PHASE
NAB	BACKUP-STATUS	PHASE
NAR	STATUS	REQUEST-PHASE
NAR	RESTORE-STATUS	PHASE

Our Request is really a status of progression of the NonAdmin request itself it finishes at Created phase and our PHASE is actually WORKER that does the job, which could be simplified to PHASE instead of WORKER-PHASE or EXECUTION-PHASE ?
https://github.com/migtools/oadp-non-admin/blob/a46d4d8ee69fb084a2c027b65b5241bb551f8e94/api/v1alpha1/nonadmin_types.go#L23-L33

weshayutin · 2025-03-18T13:07:48Z

@anarnold97 perhaps you can suggest some language to properly describe and delineate the nonadmin objects status/phase vs the velero status/phase since we're doing such a poor job of it :) Any thoughts are welcome sir

anarnold97 · 2025-03-18T13:30:38Z

Be delighted. Will have a look-see this evening

…

On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 1:08 PM Wesley Hayutin ***@***.***> wrote: @anarnold97 <https://github.com/anarnold97> perhaps you can suggest some language to properly describe and delineate the nonadmin objects status/phase vs the velero status/phase since we're doing such a poor job of it :) Any thoughts are welcome sir — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1648 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AZO3MVN4QSJIBDE2I2ZXUUL2VALDVAVCNFSM6AAAAABYCA6B6SVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDOMZTGE2TOMJUGY> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***> [image: weshayutin]*weshayutin* left a comment (openshift/oadp-operator#1648) <#1648 (comment)> @anarnold97 <https://github.com/anarnold97> perhaps you can suggest some language to properly describe and delineate the nonadmin objects status/phase vs the velero status/phase since we're doing such a poor job of it :) Any thoughts are welcome sir — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1648 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AZO3MVN4QSJIBDE2I2ZXUUL2VALDVAVCNFSM6AAAAABYCA6B6SVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDOMZTGE2TOMJUGY> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

-- Andy Arnold He / Him / His Associate Manager, Content Services Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com> Remote Dublin Ireland ***@***.*** M: 00353-894135691 <https://www.redhat.com>

mpryc · 2025-03-19T12:11:29Z

Object	Column	Description
NABSL	PHASE	Phase of the Non Admin Backup Storage Location (NABSL) object
NABSL	VELERO-PHASE	Phase from the Velero Backup Storage Location object
NAB	PHASE	Phase of the Non Admin Backup (NAB) object
NAB	VELERO-PHASE	Phase from the Velero Backup object
NAR	PHASE	Phase of the Non Admin Restore (NAR) object
NAR	VELERO-PHASE	Phase from the Velero Restore object

mpryc · 2025-03-19T12:15:48Z

Thanks @shdeshpa07 and @anarnold97 will make those adjustments, let me know if anything changes to the proposed column names, but for the moment those suggestions are great.

mpryc · 2025-03-19T17:14:18Z

Ok final agreement I think. After offline slack conversations:

Object	Column NAME	Description
NABSL	REQUEST-PHASE	Phase of the Non Admin Backup Storage Location (NABSL) object
NABSL	VELERO-PHASE	Phase from the Velero Backup Storage Location object
NAB	REQUEST-PHASE	Phase of the Non Admin Backup (NAB) object
NAB	VELERO-PHASE	Phase from the Velero Backup object
NAR	REQUEST-PHASE	Phase of the Non Admin Restore (NAR) object
NAR	VELERO-PHASE	Phase from the Velero Restore object

Implements openshift#232 with additional fields for: - NonAdminBackup - NonAdminRestore - NonAdminBackupStorageLocation Signed-off-by: Michal Pryc <mpryc@redhat.com>

mpryc · 2025-03-20T10:01:42Z

Updated, please refer to the following comment for details: #1648 (comment)

In the PR description there are updated column names and it's order to reflect current implementation:
#1648 (comment)

mpryc · 2025-03-20T10:52:35Z

/retest

openshift-ci · 2025-03-20T15:59:18Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: kaovilai, mpryc, shubham-pampattiwar

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~~ [kaovilai,mpryc,shubham-pampattiwar]

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

kaovilai · 2025-03-20T15:59:22Z

/lgtm

openshift-ci-robot · 2025-03-20T17:12:33Z

/retest-required

Remaining retests: 0 against base HEAD 6800217 and 2 for PR HEAD 60e3b13 in total

openshift-ci Bot requested review from mateusoliveira43 and shubham-pampattiwar February 28, 2025 10:57

openshift-ci Bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Feb 28, 2025

mpryc mentioned this pull request Feb 28, 2025

CRD updates for the oc CLI fields for the NAR, NAB and NABSL objects migtools/oadp-non-admin#245

Merged

This comment was marked as outdated.

Sign in to view

openshift-ci Bot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Feb 28, 2025

This comment was marked as outdated.

Sign in to view

openshift-ci Bot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Mar 6, 2025

CRD updates for the oc CLI fields for the NAR, NAB and NABSL objects

60e3b13

Implements openshift#232 with additional fields for: - NonAdminBackup - NonAdminRestore - NonAdminBackupStorageLocation Signed-off-by: Michal Pryc <mpryc@redhat.com>

mpryc force-pushed the issue_232_oc_get_fields branch from c0d412f to 60e3b13 Compare March 20, 2025 10:00

shubham-pampattiwar approved these changes Mar 20, 2025

View reviewed changes

kaovilai approved these changes Mar 20, 2025

View reviewed changes

openshift-ci Bot assigned kaovilai Mar 20, 2025

openshift-ci Bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Mar 20, 2025

openshift-merge-bot Bot merged commit fea6566 into openshift:master Mar 20, 2025

Conversation

mpryc commented Feb 28, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Why the changes were made

How to test the changes made

Prior admin approval or rejections

Created couple of BSLs - names reflect the idea behind each of them

Before any admin action:

Backup

Restore

Uh oh!

This comment was marked as outdated.

This comment was marked as outdated.

shubham-pampattiwar commented Mar 5, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

weshayutin commented Mar 5, 2025

Uh oh!

mpryc commented Mar 5, 2025

Uh oh!

shubham-pampattiwar commented Mar 5, 2025

Uh oh!

kaovilai commented Mar 5, 2025

Uh oh!

kaovilai commented Mar 5, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

weshayutin commented Mar 5, 2025

Uh oh!

shubham-pampattiwar commented Mar 5, 2025

Uh oh!

kaovilai commented Mar 5, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment was marked as outdated.

mpryc commented Mar 6, 2025

Uh oh!

weshayutin commented Mar 14, 2025

Uh oh!

openshift-ci Bot commented Mar 14, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

mpryc commented Mar 14, 2025

Uh oh!

shubham-pampattiwar commented Mar 14, 2025

Uh oh!

mpryc commented Mar 16, 2025

Uh oh!

mpryc commented Mar 16, 2025

Uh oh!

weshayutin commented Mar 18, 2025

Uh oh!

anarnold97 commented Mar 18, 2025 via email

Uh oh!

mpryc commented Mar 19, 2025

Uh oh!

mpryc commented Mar 19, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

mpryc commented Mar 19, 2025

Uh oh!

mpryc commented Mar 20, 2025

Uh oh!

mpryc commented Mar 20, 2025

Uh oh!

openshift-ci Bot commented Mar 20, 2025

Uh oh!

kaovilai commented Mar 20, 2025

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Mar 20, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

7 participants

mpryc commented Feb 28, 2025 •

edited

Loading

shubham-pampattiwar commented Mar 5, 2025 •

edited

Loading

kaovilai commented Mar 5, 2025 •

edited

Loading

openshift-ci Bot commented Mar 14, 2025 •

edited

Loading

mpryc commented Mar 19, 2025 •

edited

Loading