api
api copied to clipboard
openshift
OTA-1339: `UpdateStatus`: API to expose information about update progress & health
Alternative, smaller-footprint version of the API proposed in https://github.com/openshift/api/pull/2012, discussed in https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/1701 , addressing feedback on the early Update Health API Controller Proposal and Update Health API Draft docs.
This alternative proposal completely removes the "structure" part of UpdateStatus singleton proposed in https://github.com/openshift/api/pull/2012, and extracts the "data" part of it ("insight" leaves of the UpdateStatus tree) to a top-level, individual, smaller-footprint CRDs. This approach completely removes some of the concerns voiced in https://github.com/openshift/api/pull/2012. I have some concerns about the approach (mostly about losing functionality), but I am able to iterate and maybe the structure part can be addressed separately.
Except for the high-level layer, the example walkthrough (why the data structures are shaped like this and what functionality they are supposed to support) is applicable here as well.
/cc @JoelSpeed @sdodson @wking
@petr-muller: This pull request references OTA-1339 which is a valid jira issue.
Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the task to target the "4.19.0" version, but no target version was set.
In response to this:
Alternative, smaller-footprint version of the API proposed in https://github.com/openshift/api/pull/2012, discussed in https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/1701 , addressing feedback on the early Update Health API Controller Proposal and Update Health API Draft docs.
This alternative proposal completely removes the "structure" part of
UpdateStatussingleton proposed in https://github.com/openshift/api/pull/2012, and extracts the "data" part of it ("insight" leaves of theUpdateStatustree) to a top-level, individual, smaller-footprint CRDs. This approach completely removes some of the concerns voiced in https://github.com/openshift/api/pull/2012. I have some concerns about the approach (mostly about losing functionality), but I am able to iterate and maybe the structure part can be addressed separately./cc @JoelSpeed @sdodson @wking
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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.
Hello @petr-muller! Some important instructions when contributing to openshift/api: API design plays an important part in the user experience of OpenShift and as such API PRs are subject to a high level of scrutiny to ensure they follow our best practices. If you haven't already done so, please review the OpenShift API Conventions and ensure that your proposed changes are compliant. Following these conventions will help expedite the api review process for your PR.
![openshift-ci[bot] avatar](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/91280?v=4 "Published by a pub.dev verified publisher"){kind=small}
@petr-muller: This pull request references OTA-1339 which is a valid jira issue.
Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the task to target the "4.19.0" version, but no target version was set.
In response to this:
Alternative, smaller-footprint version of the API proposed in https://github.com/openshift/api/pull/2012, discussed in https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/1701 , addressing feedback on the early Update Health API Controller Proposal and Update Health API Draft docs.
This alternative proposal completely removes the "structure" part of
UpdateStatussingleton proposed in https://github.com/openshift/api/pull/2012, and extracts the "data" part of it ("insight" leaves of theUpdateStatustree) to a top-level, individual, smaller-footprint CRDs. This approach completely removes some of the concerns voiced in https://github.com/openshift/api/pull/2012. I have some concerns about the approach (mostly about losing functionality), but I am able to iterate and maybe the structure part can be addressed separately.Except for the high-level layer, the example walkthrough (why the data structures are shaped like this and what functionality they are supposed to support) is applicable here as well.
/cc @JoelSpeed @sdodson @wking
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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED
This pull-request has been approved by: petr-muller, wking Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign joelspeed for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.
The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment
OK tests pass with this revision: https://prow.ci.openshift.org/view/gs/test-platform-results/pr-logs/pull/openshift_api/2233/pull-ci-openshift-api-master-integration/1902789916102758400
Now I will push the version that adds a CEL validation for progress insights to enforce .metadata.name == .status.name, which makes all tests fail for me locally, and I cannot figure out why.
/test minor-images
INFO[2025-03-21T14:44:21Z] build didn't start running within 1h0m0s (phase: Pending):
* Container docker-build is not ready with reason PodInitializing
Not me!
@JoelSpeed I think I addressed all feedback now, PTAL. I have filed https://github.com/openshift/api/pull/2246 to create a new FG for this effort, and once it is approved, I will update it here as well. And once the PR is close to approval, I will squash the commits to something reasonable.
@petr-muller: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:
| Test name | Commit | Details | Required | Rerun command |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ci/prow/verify-client-go | bb998d952ce9b1b6bf0379c27a9e90f867f1f6d4 | link | true | /test verify-client-go |
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.
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-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.
@petr-muller: Closed this PR.
In response to this:
/close
Proposal was rejected internally
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-sigs/prow repository.