Bump ubi 9.4

[jotak]

No description provided.

[jotak]

guys, is there a reason here to use the "full" ubi and not the minimal like we do elsewhere ? Is it that we need more tooling in the image?

[msherif1234]

I just tried building running e2e using ubi-minimal:9.4 it shows no issue I don't think we need the full image here you switched in this PR

[jotak]

ok, commit added to use minimal
cc @jpinsonneau (in case not using minimal was intentional)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 26.08%. Comparing base (1c146cb) to head (dd7c69e).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main      #41   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   26.08%   26.08%           
=======================================
  Files           8        8           
  Lines        1081     1081           
=======================================
  Hits          282      282           
  Misses        778      778           
  Partials       21       21           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	26.08% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

[jpinsonneau]

/retest

[jotak]

@jpinsonneau , looking at the error, it seems like in the e2e test "TestFlowCapture", the output/flow directory does not exist for some reason, when using a minimal base image. Any idea why?

konflux bot is also upgrading the ubi to 9.4: #70 - so if we think this is good enough and we don't need the minimal image, I can close this PR. But I'd be curious to understand what makes it fail with minimal

[jpinsonneau]

@jpinsonneau , looking at the error, it seems like in the e2e test "TestFlowCapture", the output/flow directory does not exist for some reason, when using a minimal base image. Any idea why?

konflux bot is also upgrading the ubi to 9.4: #70 - so if we think this is good enough and we don't need the minimal image, I can close this PR. But I'd be curious to understand what makes it fail with minimal

UBI 9.3 contains package tar-1.34-6.el9_1.x86_64 GNU file archiving program
which is not present in minimal container image.

As discussed in this slack thread, you need to have tar installed on the container side to properly run oc cp.

Did you try the rsync alternative ?

[jotak]

let's see if adding tar fixes it then (I prefer to stick with the current behaviour as much as possible, and adding tar was something we do downstream also)

[jotak]

/retest

[jotak]

@jpinsonneau e2e pass now \o/

[jpinsonneau]

Code looks good, thanks @jotak !

[jotak]

@jpinsonneau I think this change will be necessary for the prow/image test to pass

[jotak]

/test images

[jotak]

/approve

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: jotak

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

The pull request process is described here

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [jotak]

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