operator-lifecycle-manager
operator-lifecycle-manager copied to clipboard
operator-framework
Fix default E2E_INSTALL_NS value
The e2e tests assume that OLM is installed in the operator-lifecycle-manager namespace if E2E_INSTALL_NS is not set. OLM is typically installed in the olm namespace.
Signed-off-by: Alexander Greene [email protected]
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED
This pull-request has been approved by: awgreene
The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
The pull request process is described here
- ~~OWNERS~~ [awgreene]
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment
![openshift-ci[bot] avatar](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/91280?v=4 "Published by a pub.dev verified publisher"){kind=small}
@timflannagan my only complaints with the e2e-local target are that:
- It builds the OLM binaries and creates a new kind cluster, which slows things down when I'm trying to iterate when developing/updating a test.
- I couldn't think of a reason that we default to
operator-lifecycle-managerbut our releases deploy OLM in theolmnamespace.
That said, I'm not opposed to investigating a new target or modifying e2e-local to allow users to avoid building the kind cluster and binaries.
That said, I'm not opposed to investigating a new target or modifying e2e-local to allow users to avoid building the kind cluster and binaries.
I suppose I could just do this with the existing e2e target by passing in the E2E_INSTALL_NS variable, but it still doesn't address the question why we default to operator-lifecycle-manager.
Yeah, I typically stay away from the e2e-local workflow in favor of using an existing kind cluster, and overriding thr E2E_INSTALL_NS variable. Maybe this workflow is something we can document? I'm not too sure why the operator-lifecycle-manager namespace was chosen.
@awgreene: PR needs rebase.
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.
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED
This pull-request has been approved by: awgreene, perdasilva
The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
The pull request process is described here
- ~~OWNERS~~ [awgreene,perdasilva]
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment
@awgreene could you please fix the conflicts - then we can get this on in =D
