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

Respect .spec.upgradeConstraintPolicy #449

Closed
m1kola opened this issue Oct 10, 2023 · 3 comments · Fixed by #520
Closed

Respect .spec.upgradeConstraintPolicy #449

m1kola opened this issue Oct 10, 2023 · 3 comments · Fixed by #520
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@m1kola
Copy link
Member

m1kola commented Oct 10, 2023

Please read RFC for better formatting and full scope. The excerpt below is just to indicate the scope covered by this specific issue.

Need to update code to respect .spec.upgradeConstraintPolicy accordingly to the RFC:

When .spec.upgradeConstraintPolicy is set to Ignore we do not apply upgrade constraints. This means an Operator can be transitioned to any available version of the package (even one older than the currently installed one). Note that, if set, other constraints on Operator still apply (e.g. .spec.version and .spec.channel).

When .spec.upgradeConstraintPolicy is set to Enforce we use either semver or legacy semantics depending on the position of the ForceSemverUpgradeConstraints feature gate.

@m1kola
Copy link
Member Author

m1kola commented Oct 11, 2023

We probably need to do #437 first because with the current structure of variable sources it is tricky to get access to relevant Operator.

@m1kola
Copy link
Member Author

m1kola commented Oct 19, 2023

We need to update tests introduced in #472 to include a case where we make sure that it is possible to upgrade within major version zero when .spec.upgradeConstraintPolicy is set to Ignore as this is the only way to upgrade in these versions.

For example, upgrade from 0.0.1 to 0.0.2 is not possible without this.

@m1kola
Copy link
Member Author

m1kola commented Nov 3, 2023

I will either need #437 to be solved (PRs #498, #499, #500 and #501 to get merged) or #508 to get merged to be able to make progress with this.

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

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant