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

OCPBUGS-22598, OCPCLOUD-2421: Merge https://github.com/kubernetes/cloud-provider-gcp:master (58ec6ae) into master #53

Merged

Conversation

cloud-team-rebase-bot[bot]
Copy link

No description provided.

nicknagi and others added 5 commits December 14, 2023 16:29
Change-Id: I6a562aae3fae34b8fd22a2043107d96bf4df38c2
Change-Id: I32f47f6c09512aa090829ee72497c507e82c90bf
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. label Dec 18, 2023
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Dec 18, 2023

Hi @cloud-team-rebase-bot[bot]. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a openshift member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

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.

yvetteli0314 and others added 9 commits December 18, 2023 20:58
…t with Multi Networking

Depends on whether the node has label for subnet and Pod range:
- if no label, node ipam controller keeps the old way to compare default GNP and Network to
  get the default CIDRs
- if label exists, node ipam controller use the labels to get the default CIDRs

also revert change in pull#607
Update Node pod CIDR in ipam controller for for Multi Pod CIDR suppor…
Change-Id: Iddfd5a8cf9bd5a9103eed9a29330ffebeb139c1c
Change-Id: I3bbe9e38bfe7962a774f2d10ea9dd552b12cbe03
Change-Id: Ic34b18f58ac566758995edbd4f14bdd34e0d2b23
@cloud-team-rebase-bot cloud-team-rebase-bot bot changed the title Merge https://github.com/kubernetes/cloud-provider-gcp:master (398b1a1) into master Merge https://github.com/kubernetes/cloud-provider-gcp:master (202bcb4) into master Dec 21, 2023
yvetteli0314 and others added 10 commits December 21, 2023 19:59
…d Network

- GNP controller reads the new pod ranges from node label for default Paramset
- If the pod range is not part of the default Paramset, GNP controller updates
  the default Paramset with the new ranges and marks default Network notReady
Add syncDefaultPodRanges change for Multi-networking default Param an…
97e991b drops `maxNodeNamesToLog` when
applied on top of 0ee532a

Signed-off-by: Nolan Brubaker <nolan@nbrubaker.com>
Based on docs for internal loadbalancer here [1], backend services [2]
and instances in instance-groups [3], following restrictions apply:

- Internal LB can load balance to VMs in same region, but different
  subnets
- Instance groups for the backend service must contain instance of
  the same subnet
- An instance can only belong to one load balanced instance group
- It is probably useful use-case to have nodes for the cluster belong
  to more than one subnet. And the current setup fails to create an
  internal load balancer with nodes in multiple subnets.

This change finds pre-existing instance-groups that ONLY contain
instances that belong to the cluster, uses them for the backend
service. And only ensures instance-groups for remaining ones.

[1] https://cloud.google.com/load-balancing/docs/internal
[2] https://cloud.google.com/load-balancing/docs/backend-service#restrictions_and_guidance
[3] https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/instance-groups/creating-groups-of-unmanaged-instances#addinstances

Co-authored-by: Abhinav Dahiya <abhinav.dahiya@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Nolan Brubaker <nolan@nbrubaker.com>

# Conflicts:
#	vendor/k8s.io/cloud-provider-gcp/providers/gce/gce.go
#	vendor/k8s.io/cloud-provider-gcp/providers/gce/gce_fake.go
#	vendor/k8s.io/cloud-provider-gcp/providers/gce/gce_instancegroup.go
#	vendor/k8s.io/cloud-provider-gcp/providers/gce/gce_loadbalancer_internal.go
@cloud-team-rebase-bot cloud-team-rebase-bot bot changed the title Merge https://github.com/kubernetes/cloud-provider-gcp:master (202bcb4) into master Merge https://github.com/kubernetes/cloud-provider-gcp:master (58ec6ae) into master Dec 25, 2023
@theobarberbany
Copy link

/ok-to-test

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. and removed needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Jan 5, 2024
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Jan 5, 2024

@cloud-team-rebase-bot[bot]: 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.

@JoelSpeed
Copy link

/approve
/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 8, 2024
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Jan 8, 2024

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: JoelSpeed

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

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Jan 8, 2024
@theobarberbany
Copy link

/retitle OCPBUGS-22598: Merge https://github.com/kubernetes/cloud-provider-gcp:master (58ec6ae) into master

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot changed the title Merge https://github.com/kubernetes/cloud-provider-gcp:master (58ec6ae) into master OCPBUGS-22598: Merge https://github.com/kubernetes/cloud-provider-gcp:master (58ec6ae) into master Jan 8, 2024
@openshift-ci-robot 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 Jan 8, 2024
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@cloud-team-rebase-bot[bot]: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-22598, which is invalid:

  • expected the bug to target either version "4.16." or "openshift-4.16.", but it targets "4.14.0" instead

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:

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.

@theobarberbany
Copy link

/jira refresh

@openshift-ci-robot 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 Jan 8, 2024
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@theobarberbany: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-22598, 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 (4.16.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.16.0)
  • bug is in the state ASSIGNED, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @miyadav

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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot requested a review from miyadav January 8, 2024 10:05
@openshift-merge-bot openshift-merge-bot bot merged commit c4b5d37 into openshift:master Jan 8, 2024
6 checks passed
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@cloud-team-rebase-bot[bot]: Jira Issue OCPBUGS-22598: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged:

Jira Issue OCPBUGS-22598 has 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.

@JoelSpeed JoelSpeed changed the title OCPBUGS-22598: Merge https://github.com/kubernetes/cloud-provider-gcp:master (58ec6ae) into master OCPBUGS-22598, OCPCLOUD-2421: Merge https://github.com/kubernetes/cloud-provider-gcp:master (58ec6ae) into master Jan 8, 2024
@openshift-bot
Copy link

[ART PR BUILD NOTIFIER]

This PR has been included in build ose-gcp-cloud-controller-manager-container-v4.16.0-202401081411.p0.gc4b5d37.assembly.stream for distgit ose-gcp-cloud-controller-manager.
All builds following this will include this PR.

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. jira/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Jira bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. jira/valid-reference Indicates that this PR references a valid Jira ticket of any type. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet