OCPBUGS-13106: Add ingress controller status logging on waitForIngressControllerCondition by gcs278 · Pull Request #924 · openshift/cluster-ingress-operator

gcs278 · 2023-05-04T14:40:55Z

This will help debug flakes in which waitForIngressControllerCondition fails, but there is no logging of status condition reasons or messages which would help with debugging.

test/e2e/operator_test.go: Add ingress controller status logging on waitForIngressControllerCondition

For OCPBUGS-13106, TestInternalLoadBalancer* and TestScopeChange GCP CI flakes, it fails because DNSReady:False and LoadBalancerReady:False are false, but doesn't provide additional information presented in the Ingress Controller Status conditions.

This is also a general improvement that would help with future failures of waitForIngressControllerCondition

openshift-ci-robot · 2023-05-04T14:41:00Z

@gcs278: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-13106, which is invalid:

expected the bug to target the "4.14.0" version, but no target version was set

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

The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

Details

In response to this:

This will help with flakes in which waitForIngressControllerCondition fails, but there is no logging of status condition reasons or messages which would help with debugging.

test/e2e/operator_test.go: Add ingress controller status logging on waitForIngressControllerCondition

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.

gcs278 · 2023-05-04T14:41:38Z

/jira refresh

openshift-ci-robot · 2023-05-04T14:41:44Z

@gcs278: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-13106, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

bug is open, matching expected state (open)
bug target version (4.14.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.14.0)
bug is in the state New, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @lihongan

Details

In response to this:

/jira refresh

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 · 2023-05-04T14:45:13Z

@gcs278: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-13106, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

bug is open, matching expected state (open)
bug target version (4.14.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.14.0)
bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @lihongan

Details

In response to this:

This will help with flakes in which waitForIngressControllerCondition fails, but there is no logging of status condition reasons or messages which would help with debugging.

test/e2e/operator_test.go: Add ingress controller status logging on waitForIngressControllerCondition

For OCPBUGS-13106, TestInternalLoadBalancer* and TestScopeChange GCP CI flakes, it fails because DNSReady:False and LoadBalancerReady:False are false, but doesn't provide additional information presented in the Ingress Controller Status conditions.

This is also a general improvement that would help with future failures of waitForIngressControllerCondition

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.

gcs278 · 2023-05-05T19:53:38Z

TestUnmanagedDNSToManagedDNSInternalIngressController Failures
/retest

frobware · 2023-05-10T15:28:08Z

/lgtm

candita · 2023-05-10T15:34:29Z

/assign @frobware

…sControllerCondition This will help with flakes in which waitForIngressControllerCondition fails, but there is no logging of status condition reasons or messages which would help with debugging. `test/e2e/operator_test.go`: Add ingress controller status logging on waitForIngressControllerCondition

frobware · 2023-05-10T15:38:33Z

/lgtm
/approve

openshift-ci · 2023-05-10T15:39:25Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: frobware

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~~ [frobware]

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 · 2023-05-10T17:02:32Z

/retest-required

Remaining retests: 0 against base HEAD 6d9676e and 2 for PR HEAD 00e85e1 in total

openshift-ci-robot · 2023-05-17T08:51:04Z

/retest-required

Remaining retests: 0 against base HEAD 960d410 and 1 for PR HEAD 00e85e1 in total

openshift-ci-robot · 2023-05-23T15:10:00Z

/retest-required

Remaining retests: 0 against base HEAD 108acb3 and 0 for PR HEAD 00e85e1 in total

openshift-ci-robot · 2023-05-23T16:50:52Z

/hold

Revision 00e85e1 was retested 3 times: holding

gcs278 · 2023-05-24T01:49:20Z

TestAWSELBConnectionIdleTimeout failures, https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-13810
/retest-required

gcs278 · 2023-05-24T22:54:52Z

/retest-required
hypershift ready failure..this is an e2e logging fix, so no association

gcs278 · 2023-05-30T13:07:42Z

/unhold
/retest

openshift-ci-robot · 2023-05-30T14:58:14Z

/retest-required

Remaining retests: 0 against base HEAD 90d2fea and 2 for PR HEAD 00e85e1 in total

gcs278 · 2023-05-30T16:23:18Z

TestAWSELBConnectionIdleTimeout and other unrelated failures
/retest-required

openshift-ci-robot · 2023-05-30T23:56:51Z

/retest-required

Remaining retests: 0 against base HEAD 5725691 and 1 for PR HEAD 00e85e1 in total

Miciah · 2023-06-01T19:48:41Z

/hold
#939 is top priority; make sure it merges first.

Miciah · 2023-06-21T11:44:05Z

/hold cancel
/test all

openshift-ci-robot · 2023-06-21T13:41:51Z

/retest-required

Remaining retests: 0 against base HEAD 038b86c and 2 for PR HEAD 00e85e1 in total

openshift-ci-robot · 2023-06-21T13:43:16Z

@gcs278: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-13106, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

bug is open, matching expected state (open)
bug target version (4.14.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.14.0)
bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @ShudiLi

Details

In response to this:

This will help debug flakes in which waitForIngressControllerCondition fails, but there is no logging of status condition reasons or messages which would help with debugging.

test/e2e/operator_test.go: Add ingress controller status logging on waitForIngressControllerCondition

For OCPBUGS-13106, TestInternalLoadBalancer* and TestScopeChange GCP CI flakes, it fails because DNSReady:False and LoadBalancerReady:False are false, but doesn't provide additional information presented in the Ingress Controller Status conditions.

This is also a general improvement that would help with future failures of waitForIngressControllerCondition

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 · 2023-06-22T03:25:33Z

e2e-aws-operator failed because must-gather failed.
/test e2e-aws-operator

e2e-aws-ovn-serial failed because [sig-network][Feature:EgressIP][apigroup:operator.openshift.io] [external-targets][apigroup:user.openshift.io][apigroup:security.openshift.io] pods should have the assigned EgressIPs and EgressIPs can be deleted and recreated failed. I have filed OCPBUGS-15283 for these failures.
/test e2e-aws-ovn-serial

e2e-hypershift failed because TestUpgradeControlPlane/EnsureNoCrashingPods failed:

{Failed  === RUN   TestUpgradeControlPlane/EnsureNoCrashingPods
    util.go:457: Container cluster-storage-operator in pod cluster-storage-operator-59cff88848-95pfr has a restartCount > 0 (1)
    --- FAIL: TestUpgradeControlPlane/EnsureNoCrashingPods (0.09s)
}

This failure has been reported on Slack.
/test e2e-hypershift

Miciah · 2023-06-22T06:58:41Z

e2e-aws-operator failed again because must-gather failed.
/test e2e-aws-operator

openshift-ci · 2023-06-22T08:40:18Z

@gcs278: 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/e2e-aws-ovn-single-node	`00e85e1`	link	false	`/test e2e-aws-ovn-single-node`

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.

openshift-ci-robot · 2023-06-22T08:45:12Z

@gcs278: Jira Issue OCPBUGS-13106: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged:

openshift/cluster-ingress-operator#924

Jira Issue OCPBUGS-13106 has been moved to the MODIFIED state.

Details

In response to this:

This will help debug flakes in which waitForIngressControllerCondition fails, but there is no logging of status condition reasons or messages which would help with debugging.

test/e2e/operator_test.go: Add ingress controller status logging on waitForIngressControllerCondition

For OCPBUGS-13106, TestInternalLoadBalancer* and TestScopeChange GCP CI flakes, it fails because DNSReady:False and LoadBalancerReady:False are false, but doesn't provide additional information presented in the Ingress Controller Status conditions.

This is also a general improvement that would help with future failures of waitForIngressControllerCondition

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 added jira/valid-reference Indicates that this PR references a valid Jira ticket of any type. jira/invalid-bug Indicates that a referenced Jira bug is invalid for the branch this PR is targeting. labels May 4, 2023

openshift-ci bot requested review from frobware and rfredette May 4, 2023 14:41

openshift-ci-robot added jira/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Jira bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. bugzilla/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. labels May 4, 2023

openshift-ci-robot removed the jira/invalid-bug Indicates that a referenced Jira bug is invalid for the branch this PR is targeting. label May 4, 2023

openshift-ci bot requested a review from lihongan May 4, 2023 14:41

gcs278 force-pushed the OCPBUGS-13106-logging branch from a74f119 to d9d80e4 Compare May 4, 2023 16:37

gcs278 force-pushed the OCPBUGS-13106-logging branch from d9d80e4 to 56deb68 Compare May 10, 2023 15:26

openshift-ci bot assigned frobware May 10, 2023

openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label May 10, 2023

gcs278 force-pushed the OCPBUGS-13106-logging branch from 56deb68 to 944d1a6 Compare May 10, 2023 15:32

openshift-ci bot removed the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label May 10, 2023

gcs278 force-pushed the OCPBUGS-13106-logging branch from 944d1a6 to 00e85e1 Compare May 10, 2023 15:36

openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label May 10, 2023

openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label May 10, 2023

openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label May 23, 2023

openshift-ci bot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label May 30, 2023

openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Jun 1, 2023

openshift-ci bot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Jun 21, 2023

openshift-ci bot requested a review from ShudiLi June 21, 2023 13:43

openshift-merge-robot merged commit 3c362e2 into openshift:master Jun 22, 2023

openshift-ci-robot mentioned this pull request Feb 7, 2024

OCPBUGS-13106: Increase GCP Concurrent Service Syncs to 10 openshift/cluster-cloud-controller-manager-operator#329

Merged

Conversation

gcs278 commented May 4, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented May 4, 2023

Uh oh!

gcs278 commented May 4, 2023

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented May 4, 2023

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented May 4, 2023

Uh oh!

gcs278 commented May 5, 2023

Uh oh!

frobware commented May 10, 2023

Uh oh!

candita commented May 10, 2023

Uh oh!

frobware commented May 10, 2023

Uh oh!

openshift-ci bot commented May 10, 2023

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented May 10, 2023

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented May 17, 2023

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented May 23, 2023

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented May 23, 2023

Uh oh!

gcs278 commented May 24, 2023

Uh oh!

gcs278 commented May 24, 2023

Uh oh!

gcs278 commented May 30, 2023

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented May 30, 2023

Uh oh!

gcs278 commented May 30, 2023

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented May 30, 2023

Uh oh!

Miciah commented Jun 1, 2023

Uh oh!

Miciah commented Jun 21, 2023

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Jun 21, 2023

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Jun 21, 2023

Uh oh!

Miciah commented Jun 22, 2023

Uh oh!

Miciah commented Jun 22, 2023

Uh oh!

openshift-ci bot commented Jun 22, 2023

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Jun 22, 2023

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

gcs278 commented May 4, 2023 •

edited

Loading