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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Bug 1762769: Prioritize APIs from same CatSrc #1080

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 20, 2019
Merged

Bug 1762769: Prioritize APIs from same CatSrc #1080

merged 1 commit into from
Oct 20, 2019

Conversation

awgreene
Copy link
Member

@awgreene awgreene commented Oct 17, 2019 •
edited by ecordell
Loading

Problem: When OLM installs an operator that requires dependencies that
are provided via multiple operators in different CatalogSources, the API
is pulled from any of the CatalogSources that provide the API.

Solution: This commit introduces a change so that OLM will generate a
list of operators that depend on the API, randomly select one of their
sources, and prioritize checking in that CatalogSource for the API prior
to checking the remaining CatalogSource for the API.

Reviewer Checklist

  • Implementation matches the proposed design, or proposal is updated to match implementation
  • Sufficient unit test coverage
  • Sufficient end-to-end test coverage
  • Docs updated or added to /docs
  • Commit messages sensible and descriptive

Fixes #1076

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

@awgreene: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1762769, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state. The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

In response to this:

Bug 1762769: Prioritize APIs from same CatSrc

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/test-infra repository.

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added bugzilla/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Oct 17, 2019
@ecordell
Copy link
Member

Where's the Definition of Done checklist in your PR description? 😉

@awgreene
bug(dependencies) Prioritize APIs from same CatSrc
b49bee6 
Problem: When OLM installs an operator that requires dependencies that
are provided via multiple operators in different CatalogSources, the API
is pulled from any of the CatalogSources that provide the API.

Solution: This commit introduces a change so that OLM will generate a
list of operators that depend on the API, randomly select one of their
sources, and prioritize checking in that CatalogSource for the API prior
to checking the remaining CatalogSource for the API.
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Oct 18, 2019
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

@awgreene: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1762769, which is valid.

In response to this:

Bug 1762769: Prioritize APIs from same CatSrc

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/test-infra repository.

2 similar comments
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

@awgreene: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1762769, which is valid.

In response to this:

Bug 1762769: Prioritize APIs from same CatSrc

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/test-infra repository.

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

@awgreene: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1762769, which is valid.

In response to this:

Bug 1762769: Prioritize APIs from same CatSrc

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/test-infra repository.

@awgreene
Copy link
Member Author

@evan

Where's the Definition of Done checklist in your PR description? wink

Added! The PR updates functionality to match behavior defined in dependency-resolution.md

@ecordell ecordell mentioned this pull request Oct 18, 2019
Closed
@ecordell
Copy link
Member

/lgtm

great work!

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 18, 2019
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: awgreene, ecordell

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

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Oct 18, 2019
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

@awgreene: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1762769, which is valid.

In response to this:

Bug 1762769: Prioritize APIs from same CatSrc

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/test-infra repository.

@ecordell
Copy link
Member

/retest

3 similar comments
@awgreene
Copy link
Member Author

/retest

@ecordell
Copy link
Member

/retest

@ecordell
Copy link
Member

/retest

@ecordell
Copy link
Member

ecordell commented Oct 19, 2019 via email

@awgreene
Copy link
Member Author

/retest

1 similar comment
@ecordell
Copy link
Member

/retest

@ecordell
Copy link
Member

/retest

3 similar comments
@ecordell
Copy link
Member

/retest

@ecordell
Copy link
Member

/retest

@ecordell
Copy link
Member

/retest

@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit fef533c into operator-framework:master Oct 20, 2019
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

@awgreene: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged. Bugzilla bug 1762769 has been moved to the MODIFIED state.

In response to this:

Bug 1762769: Prioritize APIs from same CatSrc

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/test-infra repository.

@ecordell
Copy link
Member

/cherry-pick release-4.2

@openshift-cherrypick-robot
Copy link

@ecordell: #1080 failed to apply on top of branch "release-4.2":

error: Failed to merge in the changes.
Using index info to reconstruct a base tree...
M	test/e2e/subscription_e2e_test.go
Falling back to patching base and 3-way merge...
Auto-merging test/e2e/subscription_e2e_test.go
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in test/e2e/subscription_e2e_test.go
Patch failed at 0001 bug(dependencies) Prioritize APIs from same CatSrc

In response to this:

/cherry-pick release-4.2

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/test-infra repository.

@ecordell ecordell mentioned this pull request Nov 6, 2019
Merged
timflannagan
timflannagan reviewed Nov 8, 2021
View reviewed changes
test/e2e/subscription_e2e_test.go
require.NoError(t, err)

// Create duplicates of the CatalogSource
for i := 0; i < 10; i++ {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@awgreene Any idea on why you settled on 10 duplicates when you were fixing this bug? Mainly curious before I attempt to make any performance improvements for this individual test case without realizing the full context.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@timflannagan timflannagan timflannagan left review comments

@ecordell ecordell ecordell left review comments

@jpeeler jpeeler Awaiting requested review from jpeeler

Assignees

@ecordell ecordell

Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. bugzilla/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

CSV required CRDs are resolved from an unpredictable catalog
6 participants
@awgreene @openshift-ci-robot @ecordell @openshift-cherrypick-robot @timflannagan @openshift-merge-robot