Skip to content

Conversation

@wking
Copy link
Member

@wking wking commented Jan 16, 2019

Before this commit, this section would clobber any config.AWS properties which had been set up while iterating over machine pools. I'd introduced that bug in 619db92 (#412), before which this section ran before the machine-pool iteration, so there had been nothing to clobber.

We'll need this fixed if we want to take the CI-special-case approach in #1069 (e.g. here). #792 will probably obsolete this code anyway, but this was a pretty straightforward stopgap, and it's good to acknowledge the bug.

CC @abhinavdahiya, @crawford, @smarterclayton, @staebler

Before this commit, this section would clobber any config.AWS
properties which had been set up while iterating over machine pools.
I'd introduced that bug in 619db92 (pkg/types/config: Break into
pkg/validate and pkg/tfvars, 2018-10-03, openshift#412), before which this
section ran before the machine-pool iteration, so there had been
nothing to clobber.
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. labels Jan 16, 2019
@staebler
Copy link
Contributor

looks good to me

@wking
Copy link
Member Author

wking commented Jan 16, 2019

Any reason to hold this, @abhinavdahiya, @crawford? Even if the freeze is still effective (I'm not sure), this would qualify as a bugfix.

@abhinavdahiya
Copy link
Contributor

/approve

@abhinavdahiya
Copy link
Contributor

/hold

/cc @crawford for approval

@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 Jan 16, 2019
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@abhinavdahiya: GitHub didn't allow me to request PR reviews from the following users: for, approval.

Note that only openshift members and repo collaborators can review this PR, and authors cannot review their own PRs.

Details

In response to this:

/hold

/cc @crawford for approval

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.

@crawford
Copy link
Contributor

This is a pretty simple change and is clearly a bug-fix. I'm fine merging.

/hold cancel

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Jan 16, 2019
@abhinavdahiya
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 16, 2019
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: abhinavdahiya, wking

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 [abhinavdahiya,wking]

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

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

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

@wking
Copy link
Member Author

wking commented Jan 17, 2019

e2e-aws:

fail [github.com/openshift/origin/test/extended/util/cli.go:677]: Jan 17 02:34:48.066: etcdserver: request timed out

and more.

/retest

wking added a commit to wking/openshift-installer that referenced this pull request Feb 7, 2019
Since 9a9cd6d (pkg/tfvars: Respect install-config AWS machine pools,
2019-01-15, openshift#1076) and cbad1a4 (Add size and type support for aws
volumes, 2019-01-16, openshift#1079), we should always be providing these in
the Terraform variables generated by the asset graph.

There's still a default for the bootstrap machine, but we plan on
removing that from Terraform shortly.

Dropping omitempty for the master IOPS allows the zero value (if IOPS
is nil or zero in the machine config) to generate a non-empty
Terraform value, avoiding:

  Error: Required variable not set: aws_master_root_volume_iops"

I've left omitempty on the other AWS properties, because in most cases
their zero values will not produce a functional cluster and we want to
fail fast.  In the user-tags case, we have a sane (empty set) default,
so omitting the nil map is fine.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants