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

Disable clusteroperator for package server #932

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Disable clusteroperator for package server #932

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

tkashem
Copy link
Collaborator

@tkashem tkashem commented Jun 28, 2019

Disable clusteroperator for package server while we fix https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1723818.

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. label Jun 28, 2019
@smarterclayton
Copy link
Collaborator

This is likely to fail upgrade because it leaves a stranded operator version.

I would recommend reverting the change that broke the upgrade rather than completely disabling the operator (which is likely to break others who depend on it for testing)

@smarterclayton
Copy link
Collaborator

(If this doesn’t fail upgrade tests that’s probably a bug in the upgrade tests...)

@tkashem
Copy link
Collaborator Author

tkashem commented Jun 28, 2019

This is likely to fail upgrade because it leaves a stranded operator version.

I would recommend reverting the change that broke the upgrade rather than completely disabling the operator (which is likely to break others who depend on it for testing)

@smarterclayton We have recently introduced this clusteroperator resource to track the deployment progress of packageserver component within olm. I don't believe this clusteroperator resource would exist in a 4.1 cluster.
No other test is depending on this newly introduced clusteroperator object yet, I believe.

I can definitely revert the PR that that introduced this clusteroperator object as well if that is desired. But I think it would have the same effect.

@tkashem
Copy link
Collaborator Author

tkashem commented Jun 28, 2019

/test unit

@smarterclayton
Copy link
Collaborator

Upgrade tests run against both 4.1 and recent builds of 4.2, so the e2e-aws-upgrade job should be failing because you removed an operator it knows about

@tkashem
Copy link
Collaborator Author

tkashem commented Jun 28, 2019

/retest

@ecordell
Copy link
Member

/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jun 28, 2019
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

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

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 Jun 28, 2019
@tkashem
Copy link
Collaborator Author

tkashem commented Jun 28, 2019

/retest

@ecordell
Copy link
Member

/hold

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Jun 28, 2019
@ecordell
Copy link
Member

/hold cancel

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Jun 28, 2019
@ecordell
Copy link
Member

/hold

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Jun 28, 2019
@ecordell
Copy link
Member

/refresh

@ecordell
Copy link
Member

Keeping this staged just in case, but #925 should have fixed the underlying bug, making this unnecessary.

@ecordell
Copy link
Member

ecordell commented Jul 2, 2019

Fixed the underlying issue

@ecordell ecordell closed this Jul 2, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@ecordell ecordell Awaiting requested review from ecordell

@njhale njhale Awaiting requested review from njhale

Assignees

@ecordell ecordell

Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@tkashem @smarterclayton @ecordell @openshift-ci-robot