Skip to content

Conversation

@enxebre
Copy link
Member

@enxebre enxebre commented Jul 17, 2020

With #608 we dropped the burden from the user to set the clusterID label on machines.
As elaborated in #608 (comment) the motivation is that this is an implementation detail that users shouldn't care about.

However as the labels are used by machineSet to determine ownership, the change introduced above might result in edge scenarios where the machineSet and machine label has a different value. This would result in machines going orphan and the machineSet recreating new instances. Bad.

Therefore we choose now to remove the burden from users by enforcing the label value via webhhooks and keeping the old behaviour in the backend to avoid any chance of breaking existing environments where bad input might have been set as in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1857175. This should be fixed by openshift/machine-api-operator#644 and this PR validates that scenario.

…hift.io/cluster-api-cluster

With #608 we dropped the burden from the user to set the clusterID label on machines.
As elaborated in #608 (comment) the motivation is that this is an implementation detail that users shouldn't care about.

However as the labels are used by machineSet to determine ownership, the change introduced above might result in edge scenarios where the machineSet and machine label has a different value. This would result in machines going orphan and the machineSet recreating new instances. Bad.

Therefore we choose now to remove the burden from users by enforcing the label value via webhhooks and keeping the old behaviour in the backend to avoid any chance of breaking existing environments where bad input might have been set as in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1857175. This should be fixed by openshift/machine-api-operator#644 and this PR validates that scenario.
@enxebre
Copy link
Member Author

enxebre commented Jul 17, 2020

/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 Jul 17, 2020
@enxebre enxebre closed this Jul 17, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
To complete the pull request process, please assign enxebre
You can assign the PR to them by writing /assign @enxebre in a comment when ready.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Details 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
Copy link

@enxebre: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests:

Test name Commit Details Rerun command
ci/prow/e2e-aws-operator 8ee01a3 link /test e2e-aws-operator
ci/prow/e2e-azure-operator 8ee01a3 link /test e2e-azure-operator
ci/prow/e2e-gcp-operator 8ee01a3 link /test e2e-gcp-operator

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Details

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. I understand the commands that are listed here.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants