OCPBUGS-13830: Add support for overriding container resources #136

arkadeepsen · 2023-07-11T14:15:54Z

This PR adds the OverrideResources field to DeploymentConfig. This would add the support of overriding the resources fields of the cert-manager, the cert-manager-cainjector, and the cert-manager-webhook deploymemts. Additionally, the resource requests for cert-manager-operator deployment is added.

openshift-ci-robot · 2023-07-11T14:15:58Z

@arkadeepsen: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-13830, which is invalid:

expected the bug to target the "4.14.0" version, but no target version was set

Comment /jira refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Jira bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

In response to this:

Add OverrideResources field to DeploymentConfig. Support override of resources of cert-manager, cert-manager-cainjector, and cert-manager-webhook deploymemts. Add resource requests for cert-manager-operator deployment.

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.

arkadeepsen · 2023-07-11T14:17:01Z

/jira refresh

openshift-ci-robot · 2023-07-11T14:17:08Z

@arkadeepsen: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-13830, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

bug is open, matching expected state (open)
bug target version (4.14.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.14.0)
bug is in the state New, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @xingxingxia

In response to this:

/jira refresh

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.

arkadeepsen · 2023-07-11T14:54:58Z

/assign @thejasn

swghosh · 2023-07-18T10:37:35Z

/test all

swghosh · 2023-07-20T07:09:44Z

/test all

swghosh · 2023-07-24T06:57:07Z

/test alpha-e2e-operator

swghosh · 2023-07-24T08:23:09Z

/test e2e-operator

TrilokGeer · 2023-07-25T05:21:10Z

Can PR description and subject be updated? Maybe https://hypershift-docs.netlify.app/contribute/ is of help.

openshift-ci-robot · 2023-07-25T11:54:52Z

@arkadeepsen: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-13830, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

bug is open, matching expected state (open)
bug target version (4.14.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.14.0)
bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @xingxingxia

In response to this:

This PR adds the OverrideResources field to DeploymentConfig. This would add the support of overriding the resources fields of the cert-manager, the cert-manager-cainjector, and the cert-manager-webhook deploymemts. Additionally, the resource requests for cert-manager-operator deployment is added.

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.

swghosh

Left a few suggestions, mostly looks good.
Thanks!

swghosh · 2023-07-24T11:10:52Z

config/crd/bases/operator.openshift.io_certmanagers.yaml

@@ -483,6 +579,54 @@ spec:
                    additionalProperties:
                      type: string
                    type: object
+                  overrideResources:


Can we please have the API change and the implementation in separate commits?

swghosh · 2023-07-24T11:28:41Z

bundle/manifests/cert-manager-operator.clusterserviceversion.yaml

@@ -664,7 +664,10 @@ spec:
                image: openshift.io/cert-manager-operator:latest
                imagePullPolicy: Always
                name: cert-manager-operator
-                resources: {}
+                resources:


IIUC, by default the operator would end up adding resources.requests with CPU 10m and 32Mi RAM, but no resources.limits for now.

Just noting to myself.

Is the operator container resource requests/limits customizable in any way?
We're setting it to these values here in the CSV which is a default. Asking this because, the original bug report is also about the operator resources and not just for operand.

We are only setting the requests so should be ok, but yes limits need to be customizable. Can be done using subscription.spec.config so not an issue.

Ok, we need to document it later (like we did for logLevels).
+doc-req, cc: @xenolinux

swghosh · 2023-07-31T17:54:57Z

pkg/controller/deployment/deployment_helper.go

+	return corev1.ResourceRequirements{
+		Limits:   mergedResourceLimits,
+		Requests: mergedResourceRequests,
+		Claims:   mergedResourceClaims,


cert-manager-operator/vendor/k8s.io/api/core/v1/types.go

Lines 2317 to 2329 in 585e060

// Claims lists the names of resources, defined in spec.resourceClaims,

// that are used by this container.

//

// This is an alpha field and requires enabling the

// DynamicResourceAllocation feature gate.

//

// This field is immutable.

//

// +listType=map

// +listMapKey=name

// +featureGate=DynamicResourceAllocation

// +optional

Claims []ResourceClaim `json:"claims,omitempty" protobuf:"bytes,3,opt,name=claims"`

Not completely sure about ResourceClaims (and if it is supported in OpenShift by default). The struct documentation says it is an alpha field and isn't enabled by default. Probably, for now we shouldn't support this right away is what am leaning towards.

Also, https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/configuration/manage-resources-containers/#resource-requests-and-limits-of-pod-and-container doesn't seem to have claims :(

Makes sense. I had thought as the field is included, better to support the merge functionality. Will remove it.

Added a follow-up comment in #136 (comment).

thejasn · 2023-08-01T06:13:35Z

pkg/controller/deployment/deployment_helper.go

@@ -76,6 +76,74 @@ func parseArgMap(argMap map[string]string, args []string) {
 	}
 }

+// mergeContainerResources merges source container resources with that
+// provided as override resources.
+func mergeContainerResources(sourceResources corev1.ResourceRequirements, overrideResources corev1.ResourceRequirements) corev1.ResourceRequirements {


Is it possible to make use of https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/7f6f68fdabc4df88cfea2dcf9a19b2b830f1e647/pkg/api/v1/resource/helpers.go#L377?

The func signature in this MergeContainerResourceLimits fn uses v1.Container type and two things to note:

it doesn't set hugepage related resources

it doesn't set the overriden limit in case the limit was already set in the container (i.e. if we use this and in the future we end up adding resource limits to our operand deployment (which is currently not present) we have to change this implementation)

signature change shouldn't matter to us, but anyways we can't reuse.

it doesn't set hugepage related resources

We do not want to support hugepages either since this will involve overriding volumes and volumemounts. So until someone files a bug/rfe.

it doesn't set the overriden limit in case the limit was already set in the container (i.e. if we use this and in the future we end up adding resource limits to our operand deployment (which is currently not present) we have to change this implementation)

Yeah, this might be an issue.

thejasn · 2023-08-01T11:57:31Z

pkg/controller/deployment/deployment_helper.go

+	if sourceResourceList == nil && overrideResourceList == nil {
+		return nil
+	}
+
+	destResourceList := corev1.ResourceList{}
+	parseResourceList(destResourceList, sourceResourceList)
+	parseResourceList(destResourceList, overrideResourceList)
+
+	return destResourceList


This feels redundant as ResourceList is already a map[resourceName]Quantity. Why can't we just explicitly set values for the Memory and CPU?

Suggested change

if sourceResourceList == nil && overrideResourceList == nil {

return nil

}

destResourceList := corev1.ResourceList{}

parseResourceList(destResourceList, sourceResourceList)

parseResourceList(destResourceList, overrideResourceList)

return destResourceList

if sourceResourceList == nil && overrideResourceList == nil {

return nil

}

destResourceList := corev1.ResourceList{}

if !sourceResourceList[corev1.ResourceCPU].IsZero() {

destResourceList[corev1.ResourceCPU] = sourceResourceList[corev1.ResourceCPU].DeepCopy()

}

if !sourceResourceList[corev1.ResourceMemory].IsZero() {

destResourceList[corev1.ResourceMemory] = sourceResourceList[corev1.ResourceMemory].DeepCopy()

}

return destResourceList

Suggested change

if sourceResourceList == nil && overrideResourceList == nil {

return nil

}

destResourceList := corev1.ResourceList{}

parseResourceList(destResourceList, sourceResourceList)

parseResourceList(destResourceList, overrideResourceList)

return destResourceList

if overrideResourceList == nil {

return sourceResourceList

}

if sourceResourceList == nil {

sourceResourceList := corev1.ResourceList{}

}

if !overrideResourceList[corev1.ResourceCPU].IsZero() {

sourceResourceList[corev1.ResourceCPU] = overrideResourceList[corev1.ResourceCPU].DeepCopy()

}

if !overrideResourceList[corev1.ResourceMemory].IsZero() {

sourceResourceList[corev1.ResourceMemory] = overrideResourceList[corev1.ResourceMemory].DeepCopy()

}

return sourceResourceList

Would this serve the purpose?

thejasn · 2023-08-01T12:19:59Z

pkg/controller/deployment/deployment_helper.go

+
+// mergeContainerResourceList merges source resource list with that
+// provided as override resource list.
+func mergeContainerResourceList(sourceResourceList corev1.ResourceList, overrideResourceList corev1.ResourceList) corev1.ResourceList {


Technically not a merge in case of ResourceList since we are basically overriding only here. So might as well rename this.

Won't we merge the overriding resources with the source's resources if, say, only limits is provided in the overriding resources and not requests, whereas source's resources has both limits and requests?

If we override then whatever is in the overriding resources, even if either of empty limits or requests, will override the source's limits and requests even if something is already set there.

Overriding resources takes priority so we set whatever is set there as the final value. What you are suggesting would be the case if one could update source's resources via a different channel as compared overrideResources.

So if the overrideResources is empty would we remove the default resources, though currently we don't set any?

We will never have default resources, so yes. And if overrideResources is nil nothing to do but if overrideResources is {} then yes that will take precedence.

In the future, it is possible that API server endpoints use a cert-manager issued certificate and in that case if the operator/cert-manager operand goes down it could be a SLO problem. I'd suggest preferring to refrain from adding any resource limits as of now (unless user themselves configures as such: which with this implementation they can do through overrideResources for operand and through Subscription object for the operator), also partly because upstream cert-manager also doesn't enforce these limits yet so we don't know what are good enough sane values for clusters with large certificate usage.

We might not set it right now, but the implementation should take into account the changes we might have in the future. So if we decide to add some default requests, an empty overrideResources will always end up removing that if we decide that it will override and not merge with default resources.

Agreed, implementation should be in a way that it takes care of such scenarios.

I would say,

originalDeployment: resources: requests: X limits: nil overrides: resources: resources: nil limits: Y

should translate to:

finalDeployment: resources: requests: X limits: Y

Hope it makes sense.

Whereas,

originalDeployment: resources: requests: X limits: nil overrides: resources: resources: Z limits: Y

should still translate to:

finalDeployment: resources: requests: Z limits: Y

What about this scenario?

originalDeployment: resources: requests: cpu: X limits: nil overrides: resources: requests: memory: Y limits: nil

Should it translate to:

finalDeployment: resources: requests: memory: Y limits: nil

OR:

finalDeployment: resources: requests: cpu: X memory: Y limits: nil

?

I was meaning to say, we stick to:

finalDeployment: resources: requests: cpu: X memory: Y limits: nil

in such scenarios (which involves merging individual resource types, iff not nil).

swghosh · 2023-08-01T18:18:30Z

api/operator/v1alpha1/certmanager_types.go

+
+	// +kubebuilder:validation:Optional
+	// +optional
+	OverrideResources corev1.ResourceRequirements `json:"overrideResources,omitempty"`


Can we change this type to use a self-created struct that just contains Resources and Limits (essentially stripping out Claims as well, which would be counter-intuitive for discouraging users about adding any Claims as well).

It's better to not rely upon upstream type, rather have a copied one with only the necessary fields, xref: openshift/api#1387 (comment)

…r, and cert-manager-webhook deploymemts. Add resource requests for cert-manager-operator deployment. Add e2e test for OverrideResources field in DeploymentConfig. Signed-off-by: arkadeepsen <arsen@redhat.com>

swghosh · 2023-08-04T13:42:54Z

pkg/controller/deployment/deploment_helper_test.go

+						},
+					},
+				},
+			},


Can a add another or a couple test case(s) to test the behaviour we discussed in case of: #136 (comment)

Those are added here: https://github.com/openshift/cert-manager-operator/pull/136/files#diff-fe3b58419cf80f35e0dc128fc74a9aa700807ea529635eafa1e44c8d1f39ebd6R23

openshift-ci · 2023-08-04T15:13:45Z

@arkadeepsen: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name	Commit	Details	Required	Rerun command
ci/prow/e2e-operator-upgrade	`be33077`	link	false	`/test e2e-operator-upgrade`

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

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. I understand the commands that are listed here.

arkadeepsen · 2023-08-04T15:35:39Z

/retest-required

swghosh · 2023-08-07T13:11:56Z

pkg/controller/deployment/deploment_helper_test.go

+		},
+		{
+			name: "override resources limits and requests merges with source resource limits and requests respectively",
+			sourceResources: corev1.ResourceRequirements{


Can you add test cases for testing limits and request as nil explicitly?

Similar to:

{ name: "override resources limits and requests merges with source resource limits and requests respectively", sourceResources: corev1.ResourceRequirements{ Limits: nil, Requests: corev1.ResourceList{ corev1.ResourceCPU: k8sresource.MustParse("10m"), }, }, overrideResources: v1alpha1.CertManagerResourceRequirements{ Limits: corev1.ResourceList{ corev1.ResourceCPU: k8sresource.MustParse("400m"), }, Requests: corev1.ResourceList{ corev1.ResourceMemory: k8sresource.MustParse("64Mi"), }, }, expected: corev1.ResourceRequirements{ Limits: corev1.ResourceList{ corev1.ResourceCPU: k8sresource.MustParse("400m"), }, Requests: corev1.ResourceList{ corev1.ResourceCPU: k8sresource.MustParse("10m"), corev1.ResourceMemory: k8sresource.MustParse("64Mi"), }, }, }

thejasn · 2023-08-07T12:55:01Z

pkg/controller/deployment/deployment_overrides_validation_test.go

+				t.Fatal("Informer did not get the added cert manager object")
+			}
+
+			err = withContainerResourcesValidateHook(certManagerInformers, tc.deploymentName)(nil, nil)


@arkadeepsen I believe we are not really testing anything with this function correct me if I'm mistaken. Since you passing nil as args to the returned function which doesn't use any of the arguments in the returned function. I don't see the value here.

We can ditch this in favour of covering this as part of e2e.

@arkadeepsen I believe we are not really testing anything with this function correct me if I'm mistaken. Since you passing nil as args to the returned function which doesn't use any of the arguments in the returned function. I don't see the value here.

The function which is returned doesn't use any of the arguments. Thus passing anything in the call wouldn't make any difference. Also the withContainerResourcesValidateHook function is similar to the existing ValidateHook functions.

We can ditch this in favour of covering this as part of e2e.

The unit test is added to test whether this function is working as expected. We are anyway testing the overall functionality through the e2e test.

The unit test is added to test whether this function is working as expected.

Yes, but if what is the critical business logic that you are testing here? All the functions that are constructed inside withContainerResourcesValidateHook() are not dependent on the args and is only dependent on the cluster object. validateResources is the actual function you we want to test (and this function is pretty much static if we remove the dep on the informer), I'd suggest to update the scope and make it testable directly. WDYT? This would reduce the boiler plate required for tests and also tests the critical bits.

please refer to my other comment on #136 (comment), ditto.

Ok. I'll change the scope of validateResources and add unit test for it. I'll remove the unit test for withContainerResourcesValidateHook.

thejasn · 2023-08-07T13:15:27Z

pkg/controller/deployment/deployment_overrides_test.go

+					},
+				},
+			},
+			overrideFn: func(_ certmanagerinformer.CertManagerInformer, _ string) (v1alpha1.CertManagerResourceRequirements, error) {


@arkadeepsen I don't the value running withContainerResourcesOverrideHook() in the test if are also passing the override test function. We can ditch this in favour of covering this as part of e2e.

This unit test is for checking whether the withContainerResourcesOverrideHook is working correctly or not with the inputs provided. The e2e test will anyway test the overall functionality of the feature.

With all deps/critical functions mocked, it is not really testing anything.

+1 for removing this, since that'd favour us having less redundant tests to maintain in the future.

The e2e test will anyway test the overall functionality of the feature.

Yup, right. @arkadeepsen as discussed previously, (for future/follow-up) let's stick to our plan of adding an extensible function that inputs (overrideX, expectedDeployment) and e2e tests just that. It'd help test overrideArgs, overrideEnv, overrideResources in a neat way with all test cases in a unified place.

Ok. I'll remove the unit test for withContainerResourcesOverrideHook.

swghosh · 2023-08-07T14:33:58Z

pkg/controller/deployment/deploment_helper_test.go

+			},
+		},
+		{
+			name: "override resources limits and requests merges with source resource limits and requests respectively",


small nit: would you mind changing to:
"override resources replace source limits and requests" instead?

Suggested change

name: "override resources limits and requests merges with source resource limits and requests respectively",

name: "override resources replace source limits and requests",

This test actually merges. There's not replace of existing values.

Cool, then I don’t honestly have a better naming (wanted to remove “respectively”, but fine for now :). Please leave it as is.

arkadeepsen · 2023-08-10T05:01:21Z

pkg/controller/deployment/deploment_helper_test.go

+	}
+}
+
+func TestGetOverrideResourcesFor(t *testing.T) {


@thejasn @swghosh PLMK if this unit test is also redundant. I'll remove this one as well.

I think we shouldn’t remove this one, but rather keep it. Cause, it effectively tests the switch case in the actual func that switches between different deployments (in the past we’ve seen a bug where we accidentally made mistakes in such For functions, so better to retain this).

… TestWithContainerResourcesValidateHook and TestWithContainerResourcesOverrideHook.

swghosh · 2023-08-11T11:06:07Z

/lgtm

swghosh · 2023-08-11T11:08:53Z

/cc @davemulford
for px-approved label
/cc @xingxingxia
for qe-approved label
(you should be able to test this once we do our first build for 1.12, post-merge test cause this is dev-tested)
/cc @xenolinux
for docs-approved label

TIA all!

xenolinux · 2023-08-11T11:57:42Z

/label docs-approved

xenolinux · 2023-08-11T12:00:18Z

/label docs-approved

swghosh · 2023-08-22T06:36:48Z

/label docs-approved

thejasn · 2023-08-22T06:45:43Z

/approve

openshift-ci · 2023-08-22T06:45:57Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: arkadeepsen, swghosh, thejasn

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~~ [thejasn]

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

thejasn · 2023-08-22T06:54:31Z

/label px-approved
Adding labels since this is blocking 1.12 release candidate build.

xingxingxia · 2023-08-22T07:20:25Z

/label qe-approved
Glad to see test/e2e/cert_manager_deployment_test.go already covers "cert-manager" deployment. QE decide to do post-merge test for cert-manager-cainjector, and the cert-manager-webhook and operator.

openshift-ci-robot · 2023-08-22T07:25:14Z

@arkadeepsen: Jira Issue OCPBUGS-13830: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged:

openshift/cert-manager-operator#136

Jira Issue OCPBUGS-13830 has been moved to the MODIFIED state.

In response to this:

This PR adds the OverrideResources field to DeploymentConfig. This would add the support of overriding the resources fields of the cert-manager, the cert-manager-cainjector, and the cert-manager-webhook deploymemts. Additionally, the resource requests for cert-manager-operator deployment is added.

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.

openshift-ci-robot added jira/valid-reference Indicates that this PR references a valid Jira ticket of any type. jira/invalid-bug Indicates that a referenced Jira bug is invalid for the branch this PR is targeting. labels Jul 11, 2023

openshift-ci bot requested review from deads2k and swghosh July 11, 2023 14:16

openshift-ci-robot added jira/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Jira bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. and removed jira/invalid-bug Indicates that a referenced Jira bug is invalid for the branch this PR is targeting. labels Jul 11, 2023

openshift-ci bot requested a review from xingxingxia July 11, 2023 14:17

openshift-ci bot assigned thejasn Jul 11, 2023

arkadeepsen force-pushed the resource-limits branch 2 times, most recently from e8edfac to 8293e70 Compare July 13, 2023 07:40

swghosh approved these changes Jul 31, 2023

View reviewed changes

thejasn reviewed Aug 1, 2023

View reviewed changes

swghosh reviewed Aug 1, 2023

View reviewed changes

arkadeepsen added 2 commits August 4, 2023 12:05

api: Add OverrideResources field to DeploymentConfig

c0ffa37

Support override of resources of cert-manager, cert-manager-cainjecto…

2bae4c7

…r, and cert-manager-webhook deploymemts. Add resource requests for cert-manager-operator deployment. Add e2e test for OverrideResources field in DeploymentConfig. Signed-off-by: arkadeepsen <arsen@redhat.com>

arkadeepsen force-pushed the resource-limits branch from be33077 to 2bae4c7 Compare August 4, 2023 13:38

swghosh reviewed Aug 4, 2023

View reviewed changes

swghosh reviewed Aug 7, 2023

View reviewed changes

thejasn suggested changes Aug 7, 2023

View reviewed changes

swghosh reviewed Aug 7, 2023

View reviewed changes

arkadeepsen commented Aug 10, 2023

View reviewed changes

Add validateResources function and add unit test for the same. Remove…

01e072e

… TestWithContainerResourcesValidateHook and TestWithContainerResourcesOverrideHook.

openshift-ci bot assigned swghosh Aug 11, 2023

openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Aug 11, 2023

openshift-ci bot requested review from davemulford and xenolinux August 11, 2023 11:08

openshift-ci bot added the docs-approved Signifies that Docs has signed off on this PR label Aug 22, 2023

openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Aug 22, 2023

openshift-ci bot added the px-approved Signifies that Product Support has signed off on this PR label Aug 22, 2023

openshift-ci bot added the qe-approved Signifies that QE has signed off on this PR label Aug 22, 2023

openshift-merge-robot merged commit 0ce3820 into openshift:master Aug 22, 2023
10 checks passed

swghosh mentioned this pull request Dec 19, 2023

CM-230: Add e2e test for operands override resources #168

Merged

	// Claims lists the names of resources, defined in spec.resourceClaims,
	// that are used by this container.
	//
	// This is an alpha field and requires enabling the
	// DynamicResourceAllocation feature gate.
	//
	// This field is immutable.
	//
	// +listType=map
	// +listMapKey=name
	// +featureGate=DynamicResourceAllocation
	// +optional
	Claims []ResourceClaim `json:"claims,omitempty" protobuf:"bytes,3,opt,name=claims"`

-	if sourceResourceList == nil && overrideResourceList == nil {
-		return nil
-	}
-	destResourceList := corev1.ResourceList{}
-	parseResourceList(destResourceList, sourceResourceList)
-	parseResourceList(destResourceList, overrideResourceList)
-	return destResourceList
+	if overrideResourceList == nil {
+		return sourceResourceList
+	}
+	if sourceResourceList == nil {
+		sourceResourceList := corev1.ResourceList{}
+	}
+	if !overrideResourceList[corev1.ResourceCPU].IsZero() {
+	        sourceResourceList[corev1.ResourceCPU] = overrideResourceList[corev1.ResourceCPU].DeepCopy()
+	}
+	if !overrideResourceList[corev1.ResourceMemory].IsZero() {
+	        sourceResourceList[corev1.ResourceMemory] = overrideResourceList[corev1.ResourceMemory].DeepCopy()
+	}
+	return sourceResourceList

	name: "override resources limits and requests merges with source resource limits and requests respectively",
	name: "override resources replace source limits and requests",

OCPBUGS-13830: Add support for overriding container resources #136

OCPBUGS-13830: Add support for overriding container resources #136

Conversation

arkadeepsen commented Jul 11, 2023 • edited

openshift-ci-robot commented Jul 11, 2023

arkadeepsen commented Jul 11, 2023

openshift-ci-robot commented Jul 11, 2023

arkadeepsen commented Jul 11, 2023

swghosh commented Jul 18, 2023

swghosh commented Jul 20, 2023

swghosh commented Jul 24, 2023

swghosh commented Jul 24, 2023

TrilokGeer commented Jul 25, 2023

openshift-ci-robot commented Jul 25, 2023

swghosh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

swghosh Aug 2, 2023 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

swghosh Jul 31, 2023 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

swghosh Aug 1, 2023 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

thejasn Aug 1, 2023 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

thejasn Aug 1, 2023 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

openshift-ci bot commented Aug 4, 2023 • edited

arkadeepsen commented Aug 4, 2023

swghosh Aug 7, 2023 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

thejasn Aug 7, 2023 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

swghosh Aug 7, 2023 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

swghosh Aug 7, 2023 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

swghosh Aug 10, 2023 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

swghosh commented Aug 11, 2023

swghosh commented Aug 11, 2023

xenolinux commented Aug 11, 2023

xenolinux commented Aug 11, 2023

swghosh commented Aug 22, 2023

arkadeepsen commented Jul 11, 2023 •

edited

swghosh Aug 2, 2023 •

edited

swghosh Jul 31, 2023 •

edited

swghosh Aug 1, 2023 •

edited

thejasn Aug 1, 2023 •

edited

thejasn Aug 1, 2023 •

edited

openshift-ci bot commented Aug 4, 2023 •

edited

swghosh Aug 7, 2023 •

edited

thejasn Aug 7, 2023 •

edited

swghosh Aug 7, 2023 •

edited

swghosh Aug 7, 2023 •

edited

swghosh Aug 10, 2023 •

edited