[release-4.6] Bug 1904594: Assume ingresscontroller is external absent status #503

openshift-cherrypick-robot · 2020-12-04T21:29:46Z

This is an automated cherry-pick of #502

/assign Miciah

If an ingresscontroller's status.endpointPublishingStrategy.type field is "LoadBalancerService" but status.endpointPublishingStrategy.loadBalancer is nil, assume the ingresscontroller should have an external load balancer. Commit 8cd622f added support for internal scope for load balancers. In doing so, it changed the operator logic to initialize status.endpointPublishingStrategy.loadBalancer to indicate the scope when an ingresscontroller was created, using the corresponding fields in the ingresscontroller's spec to determine the scope. The same commit also changed operator logic to assume that the ingresscontroller has internal scope if status.endpointPublishingStrategy.loadBalancer is nil. However, if an ingresscontroller already exists, the operator does not update status.endpointPublishingStrategy.loadBalancer. This commit was made in OpenShift 4.2, which means that if a cluster was upgraded from 4.1, any ingresscontrollers that were created prior to the upgrade would not have status.endpointPublishingStrategy.loadBalancer set. Subsequently, commit 982682f made the ingresscontroller's scope mutable, meaning if an ingresscontroller has an external load balancer and status.endpointPublishingStrategy.loadBalancer indicates that the ingresscontroller should have an internal load balancer, then the operator changes the load balancer from external to internal. In combination, those two commits cause the operator to change an ingresscontroller's load balancer from external to internal if the cluster has been upgraded from 4.1 → 4.2 → ... → 4.6 and the ingresscontroller was originally created on OpenShift 4.1. This commit rectifies the situation by amending the logic that was added in commit 8cd622f to assume that a nil value for status.endpointPublishingStrategy.loadBalancer means that the load balancer should be external. This assumption is valid because status.endpointPublishingStrategy.loadBalancer is nil exactly when the ingresscontroller was created on an OpenShift 4.1 cluster, and external scope was the only supported option on OpenShift 4.1. * pkg/operator/controller/ingress/load_balancer_service.go (desiredLoadBalancerService): Assume nil status.endpointPublishingStrategy.loadBalancer means external scope.

openshift-ci-robot · 2020-12-04T21:29:55Z

@openshift-cherrypick-robot: Bugzilla bug 1904582 has been cloned as Bugzilla bug 1904594. Retitling PR to link against new bug.
/retitle [release-4.6] Bug 1904594: Assume ingresscontroller is external absent status

Details

In response to this:

[release-4.6] Bug 1904582: Assume ingresscontroller is external absent status

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.

openshift-ci-robot · 2020-12-04T21:30:18Z

@openshift-cherrypick-robot: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1904594, which is invalid:

expected dependent Bugzilla bug 1904582 to be in one of the following states: VERIFIED, RELEASE_PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA), but it is MODIFIED instead

Comment /bugzilla refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Bugzilla bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

Details

In response to this:

[release-4.6] Bug 1904594: Assume ingresscontroller is external absent status

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.

Miciah · 2020-12-04T21:30:56Z

/lgtm

openshift-ci-robot · 2020-12-04T21:31:13Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: Miciah, openshift-cherrypick-robot

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

The pull request process is described here

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

~~OWNERS~~ [Miciah]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

openshift-bot · 2020-12-05T01:02:24Z

/bugzilla refresh

Recalculating validity in case the underlying Bugzilla bug has changed.

openshift-ci-robot · 2020-12-05T01:02:27Z

@openshift-bot: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1904594, which is invalid:

expected dependent Bugzilla bug 1904582 to be in one of the following states: VERIFIED, RELEASE_PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA), but it is ON_QA instead

Comment /bugzilla refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Bugzilla bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

Details

In response to this:

/bugzilla refresh

Recalculating validity in case the underlying Bugzilla bug has changed.

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.

openshift-bot · 2020-12-06T01:01:25Z

/bugzilla refresh

Recalculating validity in case the underlying Bugzilla bug has changed.

openshift-ci-robot · 2020-12-06T01:01:29Z

@openshift-bot: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1904594, which is invalid:

expected dependent Bugzilla bug 1904582 to be in one of the following states: VERIFIED, RELEASE_PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA), but it is ON_QA instead

Comment /bugzilla refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Bugzilla bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

Details

In response to this:

/bugzilla refresh

Recalculating validity in case the underlying Bugzilla bug has changed.

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.

openshift-bot · 2020-12-06T10:29:47Z

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2020-12-06T12:13:48Z

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2020-12-06T18:56:48Z

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2020-12-06T20:30:38Z

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2020-12-07T01:00:50Z

/bugzilla refresh

Recalculating validity in case the underlying Bugzilla bug has changed.

openshift-ci-robot · 2020-12-07T01:00:53Z

@openshift-bot: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1904594, which is invalid:

expected dependent Bugzilla bug 1904582 to be in one of the following states: VERIFIED, RELEASE_PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA), but it is ON_QA instead

Comment /bugzilla refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Bugzilla bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

Details

In response to this:

/bugzilla refresh

Recalculating validity in case the underlying Bugzilla bug has changed.

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.

sdodson · 2020-12-07T16:18:27Z

Because we agree that we won't ship another 4.6.z without this and that forcing testing happen in 4.7 will delay that I've overridden bugzilla/valid-bug and applied cherry-pick-approved.

sdodson · 2020-12-07T17:55:18Z

/retest

Miciah · 2020-12-07T20:13:01Z

=== RUN   TestUniqueIdHeader
    operator_test.go:1659: failed to create route openshift-ingress/unique-id-echo: the server is currently unable to handle the request (post routes.route.openshift.io)
    operator_test.go:1962: deleted ingresscontroller uniqueid
--- FAIL: TestUniqueIdHeader (104.55s)

/test e2e-aws-operator

sdodson · 2020-12-07T22:09:04Z

/retest

sdodson · 2020-12-07T22:11:25Z

/override ci/prow/e2e-operator

openshift-ci-robot · 2020-12-07T22:11:26Z

@sdodson: /override requires a failed status context to operate on.
The following unknown contexts were given:

ci/prow/e2e-operator

Only the following contexts were expected:

ci/prow/e2e-aws
ci/prow/e2e-aws-operator
ci/prow/e2e-upgrade
ci/prow/images
ci/prow/unit
ci/prow/verify
tide

Details

In response to this:

/override ci/prow/e2e-operator

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.

sdodson · 2020-12-07T22:11:50Z

/override ci/prow/e2e-aws-operator

openshift-ci-robot · 2020-12-07T22:11:55Z

@sdodson: Overrode contexts on behalf of sdodson: ci/prow/e2e-aws-operator

Details

In response to this:

/override ci/prow/e2e-aws-operator

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.

sdodson · 2020-12-07T22:13:51Z

/override ci/prow/e2e-aws
Passed previously

openshift-ci-robot · 2020-12-07T22:13:56Z

@sdodson: Overrode contexts on behalf of sdodson: ci/prow/e2e-aws

Details

In response to this:

/override ci/prow/e2e-aws
Passed previously

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.

openshift-ci-robot · 2020-12-07T22:17:04Z

@openshift-cherrypick-robot: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged:

openshift/cluster-ingress-operator#503

Bugzilla bug 1904594 has been moved to the MODIFIED state.

Details

In response to this:

[release-4.6] Bug 1904594: Assume ingresscontroller is external absent status

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.

openshift-ci-robot assigned Miciah Dec 4, 2020

openshift-cherrypick-robot mentioned this pull request Dec 4, 2020

Bug 1904582: Assume ingresscontroller is external absent status #502

Merged

openshift-ci-robot requested review from ironcladlou and knobunc December 4, 2020 21:30

openshift-ci-robot changed the title ~~[release-4.6] Bug 1904582: Assume ingresscontroller is external absent status~~ [release-4.6] Bug 1904594: Assume ingresscontroller is external absent status Dec 4, 2020

openshift-ci-robot added bugzilla/severity-urgent Referenced Bugzilla bug's severity is urgent for the branch this PR is targeting. bugzilla/invalid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is invalid for the branch this PR is targeting. labels Dec 4, 2020

openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Dec 4, 2020

openshift-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Dec 4, 2020

openshift-merge-robot merged commit 4035e92 into openshift:release-4.6 Dec 7, 2020

[release-4.6] Bug 1904594: Assume ingresscontroller is external absent status #503

[release-4.6] Bug 1904594: Assume ingresscontroller is external absent status #503

Uh oh!

Conversation

openshift-cherrypick-robot commented Dec 4, 2020

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Dec 4, 2020

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Dec 4, 2020

Uh oh!

Miciah commented Dec 4, 2020

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Dec 4, 2020

Uh oh!

openshift-bot commented Dec 5, 2020

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Dec 5, 2020

Uh oh!

openshift-bot commented Dec 6, 2020

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Dec 6, 2020

Uh oh!

openshift-bot commented Dec 6, 2020

Uh oh!

openshift-bot commented Dec 6, 2020

Uh oh!

openshift-bot commented Dec 6, 2020

Uh oh!

openshift-bot commented Dec 6, 2020

Uh oh!

openshift-bot commented Dec 7, 2020

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Dec 7, 2020

Uh oh!

sdodson commented Dec 7, 2020

Uh oh!

sdodson commented Dec 7, 2020

Uh oh!

Miciah commented Dec 7, 2020

Uh oh!

sdodson commented Dec 7, 2020

Uh oh!

sdodson commented Dec 7, 2020

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Dec 7, 2020

Uh oh!

sdodson commented Dec 7, 2020

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Dec 7, 2020

Uh oh!

sdodson commented Dec 7, 2020

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Dec 7, 2020

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Dec 7, 2020

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants