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

⚠️ Simplify v1alpha6 cluster restorer #1925

Merged

Conversation

mdbooth
Copy link
Contributor

@mdbooth mdbooth commented Mar 5, 2024

This is a breaking change, although it should not have any negative effects in practise.

The v1alpha6 cluster restorer had become too complex with too many individual fields. This change reduces the number of fields to be consistent with the v1alpha7 restorer.

With this change, an object stored as v1alpha6 with previous v1beta1 annotations could have fields in its spec restored to a semantically equivalent but slightly different serialisation when converted to v1beta1. Differences in the bastion and status are not affected.

In practise this should not matter for 2 reasons:

  • The storage version is v1beta1, so the annotation should have been freshly generated in the new format anyway.
  • Even if it were not, and the v1alpha6 were under external control, the external controller would observe a difference and restore it to the previous version. It would then be converted again with the new annotation. This would happen only once per object.

Note that if the object is not under external control these differences should not matter anyway.

/hold

This is a breaking change, although it should not have any negative
effects in practise.

The v1alpha6 cluster restorer had become too complex with too many
individual fields. This change reduces the number of fields to be
consistent with the v1alpha7 restorer.

With this change, an object stored as v1alpha6 with previous v1beta1
annotations could have fields in its spec restored to a semantically
equivalent but slightly different serialisation when converted to
v1beta1. Differences in the bastion and status are not affected.

In practise this should not matter for 2 reasons:
* The storage version is v1beta1, so the annotation should have been
  freshly generated in the new format anyway.
* Even if it were not, and the v1alpha6 were under external control, the
  external controller would observe a difference and restore it to the
  previous version. It would then converted again with the new
  annotation.

Note that if the object is not under external control these differences
don't matter anyway.
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. labels Mar 5, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: mdbooth

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:

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

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Mar 5, 2024
Copy link

netlify bot commented Mar 5, 2024

Deploy Preview for kubernetes-sigs-cluster-api-openstack ready!

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit a81ef96
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/sites/kubernetes-sigs-cluster-api-openstack/deploys/65e7315c48d50d0008f41cab
😎 Deploy Preview https://deploy-preview-1925--kubernetes-sigs-cluster-api-openstack.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile
Toggle QR Code...

QR Code

Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. label Mar 5, 2024
@EmilienM
Copy link
Contributor

EmilienM commented Mar 5, 2024

/lgtm

Thanks

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Mar 5, 2024
@jichenjc
Copy link
Contributor

jichenjc commented Mar 6, 2024

/hold cancel

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Mar 6, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit d76b07d into kubernetes-sigs:main Mar 6, 2024
9 checks passed
@EmilienM EmilienM deleted the simple_cluster_restore branch April 22, 2024 12:12
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. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
Status: Done
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants