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鈥檒l occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

馃悰 test/e2e: Calculate correct worker count in clusterctl upgrade test #9892

Merged

Conversation

sbueringer
Copy link
Member

@sbueringer sbueringer commented Dec 18, 2023

Signed-off-by: Stefan B眉ringer buringerst@vmware.com

What this PR does / why we need it:
Since #9799 we are testing the upgrade from v1.6. In v1.6 we introduced support for MachinePools in ClusterClass.

Before this PR we assumed that the number of expected machines is controlPlaneMachineCount+workerMachineCount

With this PR we are now taking a closer look at Cluster / MachineDeployment / MachinePool objects to calculate the actual expected count.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):
Fixes #9886

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. do-not-merge/needs-area PR is missing an area label size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Dec 18, 2023
@sbueringer sbueringer added the area/e2e-testing Issues or PRs related to e2e testing label Dec 18, 2023
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/needs-area PR is missing an area label label Dec 18, 2023
@sbueringer
Copy link
Member Author

/test pull-cluster-api-e2e-full-main

@sbueringer sbueringer changed the title 馃悰 test/e2e: Calculate correct worker count in clusterctl ugprade test 馃悰 test/e2e: Calculate correct worker count in clusterctl upgrade test Dec 18, 2023
Signed-off-by: Stefan B眉ringer buringerst@vmware.com
@sbueringer
Copy link
Member Author

/test pull-cluster-api-e2e-full-main

Copy link
Member

@chrischdi chrischdi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Dec 18, 2023
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: 0447c4bd308b520e96999d1993b2d33225f584f5

@sbueringer
Copy link
Member Author

Merging given lgtm above

/approve

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: sbueringer

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

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

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

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Dec 18, 2023
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit f944e88 into kubernetes-sigs:main Dec 18, 2023
21 checks passed
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added this to the v1.7 milestone Dec 18, 2023
@sbueringer sbueringer deleted the pr-fix-clusterctl-upgrade branch December 18, 2023 13:27
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. area/e2e-testing Issues or PRs related to e2e testing cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. lgtm "Looks good to me", 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.

Timed out after 300.000s. Timed out waiting for all machines to be exist
3 participants