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

Add architecture tolerations to bundleUnpacker job #2958

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 14, 2023
Merged

Add architecture tolerations to bundleUnpacker job #2958

merged 1 commit into from
Jul 14, 2023

Conversation

JamesMBartlett
Copy link
Contributor

Description of the change:
Adds tolerations for architecture taints to the bundleUnpacker job. These tolerations allow the bundleUnpacker job to be scheduled on nodes that have taints for their architecture (eg. ARM clusters on GKE have a kubernetes.io/arch: "arm64" taint.
Motivation for the change:
The OPM image that the bundleUnpacker job uses supports amd64, arm64, ppc64le, and s390x architectures, however the job manifest doesn't tolerate the kubernetes.io/arch taint for these architectures, so the bundleUnpacker won't be scheduled on nodes with this taint. This fixes that issue so now the bundleUnpacker works on ARM clusters.
Architectural changes:
None
Testing remarks:
Updated the unit test.

Reviewer Checklist

  • Implementation matches the proposed design, or proposal is updated to match implementation
  • Sufficient unit test coverage
  • Sufficient end-to-end test coverage
  • Bug fixes are accompanied by regression test(s)
  • e2e tests and flake fixes are accompanied evidence of flake testing, e.g. executing the test 100(0) times
  • tech debt/todo is accompanied by issue link(s) in comments in the surrounding code
  • Tests are comprehensible, e.g. Ginkgo DSL is being used appropriately
  • Docs updated or added to /doc
  • Commit messages sensible and descriptive
  • Tests marked as [FLAKE] are truly flaky and have an issue
  • Code is properly formatted

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot requested review from exdx and perdasilva April 24, 2023 17:33
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. label Apr 24, 2023
@openshift-ci
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Apr 24, 2023

Hi @JamesMBartlett. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a operator-framework member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

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.

@kevinrizza
Copy link
Member

/ok-to-test

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. and removed needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Apr 25, 2023
@fgiloux
Copy link
Contributor

fgiloux commented Apr 25, 2023

my gut feeling is that we should have a mechanism like for catalog pods that makes tolerations configurable: https://olm.operatorframework.io/docs/advanced-tasks/overriding-catalog-source-pod-scheduling-configuration/

@JamesMBartlett
Copy link
Contributor Author

my gut feeling is that we should have a mechanism like for catalog pods that makes tolerations configurable: https://olm.operatorframework.io/docs/advanced-tasks/overriding-catalog-source-pod-scheduling-configuration/

I think that makes sense, but in the interim would you be okay with this change to unblock deploys on ARM and other architectures?

@JamesMBartlett
Copy link
Contributor Author

I can't reproduce the e2e-test failure locally, so any help there would be much appreciated

@perdasilva
Copy link
Collaborator

@JamesMBartlett I've rebased from this side. Let's see if the e2e clears.

@JamesMBartlett
Copy link
Contributor Author

@JamesMBartlett I've rebased from this side. Let's see if the e2e clears.

Thanks. Seems like that worked.

@perdasilva
Copy link
Collaborator

@JamesMBartlett I've cut the release for v0.17.6 of api ^^

@JamesMBartlett
Copy link
Contributor Author

JamesMBartlett commented Jun 1, 2023 •
edited
Loading

@JamesMBartlett I've cut the release for v0.17.6 of api ^^

As far as I can tell the latest release for OLM is v0.24.0, so let me know what you mean by this comment and if there's any action needed from my side.

@vihangm
Copy link

vihangm commented Jun 14, 2023

@perdasilva any chances you can look at this again and merge it?

@JamesMBartlett @perdasilva
Add architecture tolerations to bundleUnpacker job
b855543 
Signed-off-by: James Bartlett <jamesbartlett@pixielabs.ai>
@perdasilva
Copy link
Collaborator

@JamesMBartlett I've cut the release for v0.17.6 of api ^^

As far as I can tell the latest release for OLM is v0.24.0, so let me know what you mean by this comment and if there's any action needed from my side.

Sorry about this. I got my wires crossed. I'll try to get this down now.

perdasilva
perdasilva approved these changes Jul 14, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Collaborator

@perdasilva perdasilva left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm

@openshift-ci
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Jul 14, 2023

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: JamesMBartlett, perdasilva

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 openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Jul 14, 2023
@joelanford
Copy link
Member

/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jul 14, 2023
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit 4564b26 into operator-framework:master Jul 14, 2023
@etep
Copy link

etep commented Sep 19, 2023

@joelanford @perdasilva curious to find out if any releases are staged, and if so, if the next release would include this PR.

@etep
Copy link

etep commented Sep 22, 2023

@joelanford @perdasilva ... curious to know when we can anticipate this PR in a release... Thank you!

@ddelnano ddelnano mentioned this pull request May 4, 2024
Merged
ddelnano added a commit to pixie-io/pixie that referenced this pull request May 6, 2024
@ddelnano
Upgrade OLM to v0.27.0 (#1889)
051df1f 
Summary: Upgrade OLM to v0.27.0

Relevant Issues: N/A

Type of change: /kind dependencies

Test Plan: Verified that the
[v0.1.5-pre-z0v27.0](https://github.com/pixie-io/pixie/releases/tag/release%2Foperator%2Fv0.1.5-pre-z0v27.0)
operator pre-release passed the release checklist

Changelog Message: Upgrade OLM from v0.24 to v0.27.0. This fixes an
issue where OLM could not be scheduled on an ARM only k8s cluster (see
operator-framework/operator-lifecycle-manager#2958
for more details)

---------

Signed-off-by: Dom Delnano <ddelnano@gmail.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@perdasilva perdasilva perdasilva approved these changes

@exdx exdx Awaiting requested review from exdx

Assignees

@joelanford joelanford

Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
8 participants
@JamesMBartlett @kevinrizza @fgiloux @perdasilva @vihangm @joelanford @etep @openshift-merge-robot