OSASINFRA-3434: Use cluster-api-provider-openstack v0.10 and CAPO v1beta1 manifests#8021
Conversation
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
|
Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request. |
|
/test e2e-openstack-ovn |
openshift-merge-robot
added
the
needs-rebase
pierreprinetti
force-pushed
the
capo-master
branch
from
361a8cb to
f153144
Compare
openshift-merge-robot
removed
the
needs-rebase
|
/test e2e-openstack-ovn |
pierreprinetti
force-pushed
the
capo-master
branch
3 times, most recently
from
f15b17c to
a56a44c
Compare
|
test regressions: |
pierreprinetti
force-pushed
the
capo-master
branch
from
a56a44c to
585f977
Compare
|
/test e2e-openstack-ovn altinfra-e2e-openstack-capi-ovn |
pierreprinetti
force-pushed
the
capo-master
branch
from
585f977 to
98389e5
Compare
|
Adapted the manifests to fit the v1alpha8 spec. /test e2e-openstack-ovn altinfra-e2e-openstack-capi-ovn |
pierreprinetti
force-pushed
the
capo-master
branch
from
98389e5 to
88b92e7
Compare
|
Bumped the bootstrap FIP logic to v1alpha8. /test e2e-openstack-ovn altinfra-e2e-openstack-capi-ovn |
openshift-merge-robot
added
the
needs-rebase
pierreprinetti
changed the title
|
@pierreprinetti: This pull request references OSASINFRA-3365 which is a valid jira issue. Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the story to target the "4.16.0" version, but no target version was set. DetailsIn response to this:
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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
openshift-ci-robot
added
the
jira/valid-reference
pierreprinetti
force-pushed
the
capo-master
branch
from
88b92e7 to
ad3dc5d
Compare
openshift-merge-robot
removed
the
needs-rebase
|
@pierreprinetti: This pull request references OSASINFRA-3365 which is a valid jira issue. Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the task to target the "4.16.0" version, but no target version was set. DetailsIn response to this:
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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
pierreprinetti
force-pushed
the
capo-master
branch
4 times, most recently
from
be785dc to
3edd8b0
Compare
|
/test altinfra-e2e-openstack-capi-ovn e2e-openstack-ovn |
pierreprinetti
force-pushed
the
capo-master
branch
from
3edd8b0 to
4cf5d19
Compare
Adjust debug and error messages, scope variables more tightly for clarity.
To update the CAPO release manifest, check out CAPO locally at the desired commit and run: ```shell make release-manifests ``` Then copy the generated file `out/infrastructure-components.yaml` to `data/data/cluster-api/openstack-infrastructure-components.yaml`.
This is the result of the following steps: 1. Fork cluster-api-provider-openstack and revert its go.mod to Go v1.21 2. Replace the fork in the Installer's go.mod 3. Replace imports from v1alphaX to v1beta1 4. Update manifests to use the v1beta1 spec
CAPO doesn't create server groups; it needs the server groups referred to in Machines to be created in the PreProvision hook.
Creating a server group for just one member is a non-operation.
When using dualstack the user is required to pre-create the VIPs Ports, so let's retrieve them in order to attach the Floating IPs instead of trying to create Ports with the same address.
When no external network is set on CAPO Cluster status it's not possible to create a Floating IP for the bootstrap. This commit fixes the issue by skipping the creation.
When using external LB the API and Ingress are managed externally, so we shouldn't create Neutron Ports with the VIPs for API and Ingress nor should we set those addresses in the Machines allowed address pairs.
This commit fixes the decoding of the cluster scheduler file by using the apropriate yaml library. Also, it enforces both IPv4 and IPv6 remote CIDRs on the router sg rule created when the master is schedulable.
pierreprinetti
force-pushed
the
capo-master
branch
from
8043bd0 to
ff07510
Compare
openshift-ci
bot
removed
the
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
|
@pierreprinetti: This pull request references OSASINFRA-3434 which is a valid jira issue. Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the task to target the "4.16.0" version, but no target version was set. DetailsIn response to this:
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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
|
/test e2e-openstack-ovn altinfra-openstack-capi-manifests altinfra-e2e-openstack-capi-ccpmso altinfra-e2e-openstack-capi-ccpmso-zone altinfra-e2e-openstack-capi-dualstack altinfra-e2e-openstack-capi-dualstack-upi altinfra-e2e-openstack-capi-externallb altinfra-e2e-openstack-capi-ovn altinfra-e2e-openstack-capi-proxy |
| module openshift/installer/cluster-api/providers/openstack | ||
|
|
||
| go 1.20 | ||
| go 1.21 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the Installer folks seems to have a guideline on splitting vendoring commits.
One commit with go.mod and go.sum change and another for the vendor update, like we did in this PR https://github.com/openshift/installer/pull/7939/commits
context #7939 (comment)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, it helps with reviewing specially when looking commit by commit in large PRs.
|
CI looks good to me. Do you mind also having a look @MaysaMacedo @mandre? Don't be shy and slap a LGTM if you're satisfied. |
|
/lgtm |
|
/approve |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: patrickdillon 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
bot
added
the
approved
|
/override |
|
@pierreprinetti: /override requires failed status contexts to operate on, but none was given DetailsIn response to this:
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. |
|
@pierreprinetti: The following tests failed, say
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. DetailsInstructions 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. |
6 participants
Use cluster-api-provider-openstack v0.10 and v1beta1 manifests.