Skip to content
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

Don't use baremetal-operator API in functional tests. #1248

Merged

Conversation

rabi
Copy link
Contributor

@rabi rabi commented Jan 3, 2025

We can't refactor baremetal-operator API as the tests fail when building openstack-operator with a baremetal-operator change.

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm label Jan 3, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@bshephar bshephar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah, this sounds good to me.

Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Jan 3, 2025

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: bshephar, fao89, rabi

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
  • OWNERS [bshephar,fao89,rabi]

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

We can't refactor baremetal-operator API as the tests fail
when building openstack-operator with a baremetal-operator
change.

Signed-off-by: rabi <[email protected]>
@rabi rabi force-pushed the refactor_functional branch from 8f30033 to 0f4edc7 Compare January 3, 2025 13:11
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot removed the lgtm label Jan 3, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Jan 3, 2025

New changes are detected. LGTM label has been removed.

@rabi
Copy link
Contributor Author

rabi commented Jan 3, 2025

Had to be rebased as #1245 merged before this, we did not need that.

@fao89 fao89 added the lgtm label Jan 3, 2025
@rabi
Copy link
Contributor Author

rabi commented Jan 3, 2025

/test openstack-operator-build-deploy-kuttl

1 similar comment
@rabi
Copy link
Contributor Author

rabi commented Jan 4, 2025

/test openstack-operator-build-deploy-kuttl

@bshephar
Copy link
Contributor

bshephar commented Jan 5, 2025

Kuttl failure unrelated:

�[36mINFO�[0m[2025-01-04T03:34:07Z] Releasing cluster claims for test openstack-operator-build-deploy-kuttl 
�[36mINFO�[0m[2025-01-04T03:34:07Z] Ran for 1h9m30s                              
�[31mERRO�[0m[2025-01-04T03:34:07Z] Some steps failed:                           
�[31mERRO�[0m[2025-01-04T03:34:07Z] 
  * could not run steps: step openstack-operator-build-deploy-kuttl failed: "openstack-operator-build-deploy-kuttl" test steps failed: "openstack-operator-build-deploy-kuttl" pod "openstack-operator-build-deploy-kuttl-openstack-k8s-operators-kuttl" failed: could not watch pod: the pod ci-op-ygzjqip3/openstack-operator-build-deploy-kuttl-openstack-k8s-operators-kuttl failed after 38m36s (failed containers: test): ContainerFailed one or more containers exited

Container test exited with code 2, reason Error

@bshephar
Copy link
Contributor

bshephar commented Jan 5, 2025

/test openstack-operator-build-deploy-kuttl

@openshift-merge-bot openshift-merge-bot bot merged commit 800f323 into openstack-k8s-operators:main Jan 6, 2025
6 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants