-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.1k
openstack: Add cacert to clouds.yaml if provided #19392
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
openstack: Add cacert to clouds.yaml if provided #19392
Conversation
This change assumes that all steps in the job will mount SHARED_DIR to the same mountpoint, as it seems to currently be the case. That mountpoint is persisted in the cacert property of the clouds.yaml.
204ca81 to
c615113
Compare
|
/cc @MaysaMacedo @mdbooth |
|
This lgtm in principal. Lets see what the test commit shows. |
|
/test all |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm trying to understand this change vs its commit message and I don't follow.
From my understanding here, we're switching the e2e-openstack-ipi in the installer project to use mecha cloud instead of managed vexxhost?
I hope not because mecha cloud isn't ready yet (we're having performances issues).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
nevermind, I was reading the PR commit message.
Still this cloud is unstable, don't use it yet please.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The second commit (that is now removed) was a way to test the change; the change in this PR is just preparatory.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Seems like the commit in question (c61511319841007c9df0b02df7927050bb67ea8b) is still part of the PR. Do you still want to remove it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The second commit (that is NOW removed) ...... 😬
c615113 to
a56c706
Compare
mandre
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
/lgtm
/hold for CI
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: mandre, pierreprinetti 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 |
|
@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. |
|
@mandre The failure doesn't look related to the change. Do you want to remove the hold? |
|
/hold cancel |
|
@pierreprinetti: Updated the
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. |
This change assumes that all steps in the job will mount SHARED_DIR to
the same mountpoint, as it seems to currently be the case.