api
api copied to clipboard
openshift
NE-1530: IngressController LB Subnet Selection in AWS
Allows users to specify subnets (i.e. Availability Zones) for IngressControllers using load balancers in AWS. Introduce
under the IngressControllerLBSubnetsAWS FeatureGate. Works for both CLB and NLBs.
Enhancement: https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/1595 Epic: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/NE-705
@gcs278: This pull request references NE-705 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 epic to target either version "4.16." or "openshift-4.16.", but it targets "openshift-4.13" instead.
In response to this:
Allows users to specify subnets (i.e. Availability Zones) for IngressControllers in AWS. Introduce under the
AWSLoadBalancerSubnetSelectionFeatureGate. Works for both CLB and NLBs.Enhancement: https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/1595 RFE: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RFE-1717.
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 @gcs278! 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}
@gcs278: This pull request references NE-1530 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 story to target the "4.16.0" version, but no target version was set.
In response to this:
Allows users to specify subnets (i.e. Availability Zones) for IngressControllers in AWS. Introduce under the
AWSLoadBalancerSubnetSelectionFeatureGate. Works for both CLB and NLBs.Enhancement: https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/1595 RFE: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RFE-1717.
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.
@gcs278: This pull request references NE-1530 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 story to target the "4.16.0" version, but no target version was set.
In response to this:
Allows users to specify subnets (i.e. Availability Zones) for IngressControllers in AWS. Introduce under the
AWSLoadBalancerSubnetSelectionFeatureGate. Works for both CLB and NLBs.Enhancement: https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/1595 Epic: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/NE-705
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.
@gcs278: This pull request references NE-1530 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 story to target the "4.16.0" version, but no target version was set.
In response to this:
Allows users to specify subnets (i.e. Availability Zones) for IngressControllers using load balancers in AWS. Introduce under the
IngressControllerLBSubnetsAWSFeatureGate. Works for both CLB and NLBs.Enhancement: https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/1595 Epic: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/NE-705
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.
/hold
EP is still under review and it's likely we will add a ingresses.config.openshift.io.spec.loadBalancer.platform.aws.subnets field as well.
An example failure from verify-crd-schema. Is it in development?
error running generator schemacheck on group operator.openshift.io: could not run schemacheck generator for group/version operator.openshift.io/v1: error in operator/v1/zz_generated.crd-manifests/0000_50_ingress_00_ingresscontrollers-CustomNoUpgrade.crd.yaml: ListsMustHaveSSATags: crd/ingresscontrollers.operator.openshift.io version/v1 field/^.spec.namespaceSelector.matchExpressions must set x-kubernetes-list-type error in operator/v1/zz_generated.crd-manifests/0000_50_ingress_00_ingresscontrollers-CustomNoUpgrade.crd.yaml: ListsMustHaveSSATags: crd/ingresscontrollers.operator.openshift.io version/v1 field/^.spec.namespaceSelector.matchExpressions[*].values must set x-kubernetes-list-type
/test verify-crd-schema
An example failure from verify-crd-schema. Is it in development?
error running generator schemacheck on group operator.openshift.io: could not run schemacheck generator for group/version operator.openshift.io/v1: error in operator/v1/zz_generated.crd-manifests/0000_50_ingress_00_ingresscontrollers-CustomNoUpgrade.crd.yaml: ListsMustHaveSSATags: crd/ingresscontrollers.operator.openshift.io version/v1 field/^.spec.namespaceSelector.matchExpressions must set x-kubernetes-list-type error in operator/v1/zz_generated.crd-manifests/0000_50_ingress_00_ingresscontrollers-CustomNoUpgrade.crd.yaml: ListsMustHaveSSATags: crd/ingresscontrollers.operator.openshift.io version/v1 field/^.spec.namespaceSelector.matchExpressions[*].values must set x-kubernetes-list-type
/test verify-crd-schema
@candita I saw that too, but at the end of the logs is:
This verifier checks all files that have changed. In some cases you may have changed or
renamed a file that already contained api violations, but you are not introducing a new
violation. In such cases it is appropriate to /override the failing CI job.
And I reviewed the logs and don't see any issue with my added subnets API. Instead, all of the errors are from existing fields. So I think I will require an override when the time comes to it.
/lgtm /override ci/prow/verify-crd-schema
Unfixable pre-existing failures in the verify
/hold
@gcs278 Just wanted to check you still wanted to merge this for 4.16 given the proximity to the branch cut, feel free to hold cancel if you're still wanting it in
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED
This pull-request has been approved by: candita, gcs278, JoelSpeed
The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
The pull request process is described here
- ~~OWNERS~~ [JoelSpeed]
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment
@JoelSpeed: Overrode contexts on behalf of JoelSpeed: ci/prow/verify-crd-schema
In response to this:
/lgtm /override ci/prow/verify-crd-schema
Unfixable pre-existing failures in the verify
/hold
@gcs278 Just wanted to check you still wanted to merge this for 4.16 given the proximity to the branch cut, feel free to hold cancel if you're still wanting it in
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.
@gcs278 Just wanted to check you still wanted to merge this for 4.16 given the proximity to the branch cut, feel free to hold cancel if you're still wanting it in
Just to follow up on the PR: We are holding off until 4.17 opens to merge this.
@gcs278: The following tests 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-crd-schema | 081a99a39cf90b6de3b7f9853bd4e15f9630f1d0 | link | true | /test verify-crd-schema |
| ci/prow/e2e-gcp | 081a99a39cf90b6de3b7f9853bd4e15f9630f1d0 | link | false | /test e2e-gcp |
| ci/prow/e2e-aws-serial | 081a99a39cf90b6de3b7f9853bd4e15f9630f1d0 | link | true | /test e2e-aws-serial |
| ci/prow/e2e-aws-ovn-techpreview | 081a99a39cf90b6de3b7f9853bd4e15f9630f1d0 | link | true | /test e2e-aws-ovn-techpreview |
| ci/prow/e2e-azure | 081a99a39cf90b6de3b7f9853bd4e15f9630f1d0 | link | false | /test e2e-azure |
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.
/lgtm /override ci/prow/verify-crd-schema
Ignoring existing failures being reported here, all SSA tags fixed so everything left is unfixable
@JoelSpeed: Overrode contexts on behalf of JoelSpeed: ci/prow/verify-crd-schema
In response to this:
/lgtm /override ci/prow/verify-crd-schema
Ignoring existing failures being reported here, all SSA tags fixed so everything left is unfixable
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.
/retest-required
Remaining retests: 0 against base HEAD ba11c1587003dc84cb014fd8db3fa597a3faaa63 and 2 for PR HEAD e745b003dbf57b7670a004e794ea58abbb5f7ed5 in total
/retest-required
Remaining retests: 0 against base HEAD 16d44e6d3e7d50ab99e2abae42e1c419318a175f and 1 for PR HEAD e745b003dbf57b7670a004e794ea58abbb5f7ed5 in total
/retest-required
Remaining retests: 0 against base HEAD b01900f1982a40d2b71a3c742de5755f3f28264f and 0 for PR HEAD e745b003dbf57b7670a004e794ea58abbb5f7ed5 in total
/hold
Revision e745b003dbf57b7670a004e794ea58abbb5f7ed5 was retested 3 times: holding
e2e-aws-serial-techpreview is permafailing now with:
[sig-api-machinery] API data in etcd should be stored at the correct location and version for all resources [Serial] [Suite:openshift/conformance/serial] expand_less 7s
{ fail [github.com/openshift/origin/test/extended/etcd/etcd_storage_path.go:534]: test failed:
no test data for resource.k8s.io/v1alpha2, Kind=ResourceClaimParameters. Please add a test for your new type to etcdStorageData.
no test data for resource.k8s.io/v1alpha2, Kind=ResourceClassParameters. Please add a test for your new type to etcdStorageData.
no test data for resource.k8s.io/v1alpha2, Kind=ResourceSlice. Please add a test for your new type to etcdStorageData.
etcd data does not match the types we saw:
seen but not in etcd data:
[
resource.k8s.io/v1alpha2, Resource=resourceclassparameters
resource.k8s.io/v1alpha2, Resource=resourceslices
resource.k8s.io/v1alpha2, Resource=resourceclaimparameters]
Ginkgo exit error 1: exit with code 1}
I see a bug was created https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-34666 and https://github.com/openshift/kubernetes/pull/1984 is being tested as a fix.
https://github.com/openshift/origin/pull/28843 has merged. I believe this is intended to fix the techpreview e2e tests. /hold cancel
/retest
/retest-required
Remaining retests: 0 against base HEAD b01900f1982a40d2b71a3c742de5755f3f28264f and 2 for PR HEAD e745b003dbf57b7670a004e794ea58abbb5f7ed5 in total
@JoelSpeed could I get you to override ci/prow/verify-crd-schema once again?