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

Improve the checkClientCompatibility reconciler #2099

Open
johscheuer opened this issue Jul 5, 2024 · 1 comment
Open

Improve the checkClientCompatibility reconciler #2099

johscheuer opened this issue Jul 5, 2024 · 1 comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@johscheuer
Copy link
Member

What would you like to be added/changed?

During version incompatible upgrades the checkClientCompatibility this reconciler will check if there are any incompatible processes with the new desired version. Currently this is implemented in a sub-optimal way that if the check fails, because at least one process is reported as being incompatible, all the further reconcilers will be skipped. That means this issue must be solved fairly quickly to allow the operator to work properly again.

There are different ways how we could solve this e.g. by doing the actual check of checkClientCompatibility inside the updateStatus reconciler and update the cluster.Status in the FoundationDBCluster resource with the result. Based on that information the updateSidecarVersions could update the sidecars or not. The same check would be needed when the fdb-monitor configuration is created, to make sure that the config is only adjusted when the client compatibility check is fine.

@johscheuer johscheuer added the enhancement New feature or request label Jul 5, 2024
@johscheuer
Copy link
Member Author

e.g. when implementing this change we could add a new condition for the failing client compatibility check as mentioned in: #1000.

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

No branches or pull requests

1 participant