Skip to content
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

Error on upgrade from 1.7.0 to 1.8.0 on OpenShift through OLM #1389

Closed
rockaut opened this issue Sep 3, 2024 · 2 comments
Closed

Error on upgrade from 1.7.0 to 1.8.0 on OpenShift through OLM #1389

rockaut opened this issue Sep 3, 2024 · 2 comments

Comments

@rockaut
Copy link

rockaut commented Sep 3, 2024

There is already an open Datadog case (1829977) for this. This is just a heads up for everybody else who runs into this ;-)

Describe what happened:
We upgraded the cluster through an installplan from 1.7.0 to 1.8.0. The upgrade got stuck in pending with an error on "possible data loss" because the removed v1alpha1 CRD of DatadogAgent was still in the CRDs .status.storedVersions . We then needed to tediously remove the installplans, crds and even the installed operator itself to get a clean state again.

The correct way to do this according to the k8s docs (https://kubernetes.io/docs/tasks/extend-kubernetes/custom-resources/custom-resource-definition-versioning/) is to remove the .status.storedVersion BEFORE you start the upgrade as with the upgrade the crd version will be removed.

We don't know if there even is a way to do this with OLM automatically but at least it should be noted in an upgrade notice.

Additional environment details (Operating System, Cloud provider, etc):
OpenShift 4.14
Operator 1.7.0 and 1.8.0 installed through OperatorHub

@celenechang
Copy link
Contributor

Thank you for reporting @rockaut , and many apologies for the trouble. We will add documentation for this OLM upgrade issue to 1.8.

@tbavelier
Copy link
Member

Thank you again for the report @rockaut and sorry for the inconvenience, we reproduced and added resolution steps that should be slightly less disruptive.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants