Skip to content

Conversation

@kirankt
Copy link
Contributor

@kirankt kirankt commented Feb 3, 2022

This is a partial implementation of user selectable install solutions

This PR only adds install-config configuration to manage capabilities.

Edit: New and additional details improving on the enhancement can be found here and is incorporated in this PR

@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Feb 3, 2022

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
To complete the pull request process, please assign sdodson after the PR has been reviewed.
You can assign the PR to them by writing /assign @sdodson 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 openshift-ci bot requested review from jhixson74 and jstuever February 3, 2022 23:56
@kirankt
Copy link
Contributor Author

kirankt commented Feb 3, 2022

/assign @staebler, @wking

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should this be optional? Are we going to omit the capabilities configuration from the ClusterVersion resource when this is omitted? I would expect that we would still set a default value in the ClusterVersion resource.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes. This should be optional. I've added the macro comment.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

OK. Optional does make sense. But I do think we want to populate with the default, even when the entire Capabilities has been omitted. I am also leaning towards if the user provided any values for Include or Exclude, then they are also required to make an explicit decision about InclusionDefault (despite it being redundant with whether they chose Include or Exclude).

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The design has changed since the enhancement and I've updated the PR with the new ideas. PTAL

@kirankt
Copy link
Contributor Author

kirankt commented Feb 7, 2022

/retest

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. and removed needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. labels Feb 9, 2022
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is it useful to declare your own type? I'd have expected you to use *configv1.ClusterVersionCapabilitiesSpec as the type for the new InstallConfig property.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

+1. Will remove. I was working myself backwards into reusing all the defs from configv1 but missed this one.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The reason that we want to use our own type is because it allows us to control changes to meet our forward-compatibility guarantees.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Won't openshift/api have those same forward-compat commitments?

@wking
Copy link
Member

wking commented Feb 11, 2022

Looks good to me :). I'll let the installer maintainers take a look (and I've filed #5644 to drop myself from the approver set).

@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Feb 11, 2022

@kirankt: The following tests 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-workers-rhel7 23d98b6dd2698791c11c9e50b22da5cdf6bc3a41 link false /test e2e-aws-workers-rhel7
ci/prow/okd-e2e-aws-upgrade 2d8c719 link false /test okd-e2e-aws-upgrade
ci/prow/e2e-azure-upi 2d8c719 link false /test e2e-azure-upi
ci/prow/e2e-aws-single-node 2d8c719 link false /test e2e-aws-single-node
ci/prow/e2e-crc 2d8c719 link false /test e2e-crc
ci/prow/e2e-ibmcloud 2d8c719 link false /test e2e-ibmcloud
ci/prow/e2e-aws-workers-rhel8 2d8c719 link false /test e2e-aws-workers-rhel8

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.

@kirankt
Copy link
Contributor Author

kirankt commented Feb 24, 2022

Closing this PR in favor of #5645

@kirankt kirankt closed this Feb 24, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants