OCPBUGS-29012: Remove concurrent-service-syncs limitation #106
Conversation
openshift-ci-robot
added
the
jira/valid-reference
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
openshift-ci-robot
added
the
jira/valid-bug
|
@JoelSpeed: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-29012, which is valid. 3 validation(s) were run on this bug
Requesting review from QA contact: The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker. In 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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
|
Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request. |
|
/test e2e-azure |
|
@JoelSpeed: The specified target(s) for
The following commands are available to trigger optional jobs:
Use In 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. |
|
/test e2e-azure-ovn |
|
E2E testing is looking good, I'm planning to do some manual testing today to see if I can reproduce the upstream bug that introduced this restriction |
|
/payload-job periodic-ci-openshift-release-master-ci-4.16-upgrade-from-stable-4.15-e2e-azure-sdn-upgrade |
|
@stbenjam: trigger 1 job(s) for the /payload-(with-prs|job|aggregate|job-with-prs|aggregate-with-prs) command
See details on https://pr-payload-tests.ci.openshift.org/runs/ci/788b1d70-c68f-11ee-8ca2-2b506a003312-0 |
JoelSpeed
force-pushed
the
concurrent-syncs
branch
from
5f20dd2
to
0a6308d
Compare
openshift-ci
bot
removed
the
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
|
Discussed with @elmiko , going to merge this PR as a revert of the upstream pinning to 1 concurrent reconcile, and then configure the flag in CCMO in a separate PR. We've assessed the risk of the change and left our comments in the bug, we are happy to accept the risks on this occasion given the advancements in the CCM over the last 5 years since this limitation was put in |
|
@JoelSpeed: all tests passed! 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. |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: elmiko 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 |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
approved
|
@JoelSpeed: Jira Issue OCPBUGS-29012: Some pull requests linked via external trackers have merged: The following pull requests linked via external trackers have not merged: These pull request must merge or be unlinked from the Jira bug in order for it to move to the next state. Once unlinked, request a bug refresh with Jira Issue OCPBUGS-29012 has not been moved to the MODIFIED state. In 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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
|
[ART PR BUILD NOTIFIER] This PR has been included in build ose-azure-cloud-node-manager-container-v4.16.0-202402140210.p0.g6d07b28.assembly.stream.el9 for distgit ose-azure-cloud-node-manager. |
|
Fix included in accepted release 4.16.0-0.nightly-2024-02-17-013806 |
|
Fix included in accepted release 4.16.0-0.nightly-2024-05-01-111315 |
This limitation was added upstream to prevent concurrent calls to
CreateOrUpdateLoadBalancer. It was added 5 years ago and I would like to see if I can reproduce the issue with the current codebase.