docs/dev: Second level operator FAQ #34
Conversation
openshift-ci-robot
added
the
size/L
|
@wking Feedback please. |
wking
left a comment
wking
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me. A few minor nits inline.
docs/dev/operators.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| In your deployment you can reference the latest development version of your operator image (quay.io/openshift/origin-machine-api-operator:latest). If you have other hard-coded image strings, try to put them as environment variables on your deployment or as a config map. | ||
|
|
||
| Your manifests will be applied in alphabetical order by the CVO, so name your files in the order you want them run. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shift this line into the next section?
docs/dev/operators.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| Your manifests will be applied in alphabetical order by the CVO, so name your files in the order you want them run. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Names of manifest files: |
docs/dev/operators.md
Outdated
| 99_ingress-operator_01_roles.yaml | ||
| 99_ingress-operator_02_deployment.yaml | ||
|
|
||
| ## How do I get added as a special run level? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This belongs as a sibling of the previous subsection, since it discusses /manifests content. It should be a ### header.
docs/dev/operators.md
Outdated
| ## How do I ensure the right images get used by my manifests? | ||
| Your manifests can contain a tag to the latest development image published by Origin. You’ll annotate your manifests by creating a file that identifies those images. | ||
|
|
||
| Assume you have two images in your manifests - “quay.io/openshift/origin-ingress-operator:latest” and “quay.io/openshift/origin-haproxy-router:latest”. Those correspond to the following tags “ingress-operator” and “haproxy-router” when the CI runs. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These image names and tags should probably be backticked instead of being curly-quoted.
rajatchopra
force-pushed
the
docs
branch
2 times, most recently
from
bc1185c to
9cbd960
Compare
|
@wking All feedback incorporated. Thanks. |
|
/lgtm |
|
/test e2e-aws |
docs/dev/operators.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| 0000_<runlevel>_<dash-separated_component>-<manifest_filename> | ||
|
|
||
| For example, the Kube core operators run in runlevel 10 and have filenames like |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For example, the Kube operators run in runlevels 10-19 and have filenames like
New document/guide in the form of a detailed FAQ for operator authors wanting to integrate their operators with the cluster payload generated by CVO.
|
/lgtm |
crawford
changed the title
|
/lgtm |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: abhinavdahiya, crawford, rajatchopra, wking The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
openshift-ci-robot
added
the
approved
It feels like the wording wanted this to be an enumerated list, but the text landed without that markup in e046cd7 (docs/dev: Second level operator FAQ, 2018-10-08, openshift#34).
7 participants
New document/guide in the form of a detailed FAQ for operator authors wanting to integrate their operators with the cluster payload generated by CVO.
Excerpted from internal documentation.