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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Bug 1846420: Re-vendor dependencies for manifest and code generation with go modules #72

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jun 20, 2020
Merged

Bug 1846420: Re-vendor dependencies for manifest and code generation with go modules #72

merged 1 commit into from Jun 20, 2020

Conversation

kirankt
Copy link

@kirankt kirankt commented Jun 1, 2020

New deep copy code generation
Adjust Makefile to use new vendoring
New CRDs generated by make manifest target

@kirankt
Re-vendor dependencies for manifest and code generation with go modules
2f18bc7 
New deep copy code generation
Adjust Makefile to use new vendoring
New CRDs generated by make manifest target
@n1r1
Copy link

n1r1 commented Jun 2, 2020

/test e2e-metal-ipi

2 similar comments
@kirankt
Copy link
Author

kirankt commented Jun 2, 2020

/test e2e-metal-ipi

@kirankt
Copy link
Author

kirankt commented Jun 3, 2020

/test e2e-metal-ipi

sadasu
sadasu reviewed Jun 4, 2020
View reviewed changes
Makefile
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ run: generate fmt vet

# Install CRDs into a cluster
install: manifests
kubectl apply -f vendor/github.com/openshift/cluster-api/config/crds/
kubectl apply -f vendor/github.com/openshift/machine-api-operator/install
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What CRD(s) in the machine-api-operator does the CAPBM need to function?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The definitions of 'machine', 'machinesets', etc come from MAO (and formerly ClusterAPI). Thanks.

sadasu
sadasu approved these changes Jun 4, 2020
View reviewed changes
Copy link

@sadasu sadasu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Adding /approve because my comment was just a learning question.

@kirankt
Copy link
Author

kirankt commented Jun 4, 2020

/assign @mhrivnak. PTAL at this PR, when you get a chance. A little context. The previous CAPI to MAO PR missed a few things, especially deepcopy and CRD generation. This PR remedies these overlooked parts. Many thanks.

@mhrivnak
Copy link
Member

mhrivnak commented Jun 8, 2020

/assign @mhrivnak. PTAL at this PR, when you get a chance. A little context. The previous CAPI to MAO PR missed a few things, especially deepcopy and CRD generation. This PR remedies these overlooked parts. Many thanks.

Is there a gap in CI that explains why it wasn't caught the first time? Has additional testing of any kind been applied to this PR vs the prior one?

@stbenjam
Copy link
Member

stbenjam commented Jun 8, 2020

/assign @mhrivnak. PTAL at this PR, when you get a chance. A little context. The previous CAPI to MAO PR missed a few things, especially deepcopy and CRD generation. This PR remedies these overlooked parts. Many thanks.

Is there a gap in CI that explains why it wasn't caught the first time? Has additional testing of any kind been applied to this PR vs the prior one?

The previous PR passed... our e2e tests run a basic install with control plane and 2 workers, and a subset of the openshift conformance tests. What does this missing affect?

@stbenjam
Copy link
Member

stbenjam commented Jun 8, 2020

Also: this needs a BZ so we can backport it to 4.5, the previous PR was against 4.5.

@zaneb
Copy link
Member

zaneb commented Jun 8, 2020

/approve

@kirankt
Copy link
Author

kirankt commented Jun 8, 2020

/assign @mhrivnak. PTAL at this PR, when you get a chance. A little context. The previous CAPI to MAO PR missed a few things, especially deepcopy and CRD generation. This PR remedies these overlooked parts. Many thanks.

Is there a gap in CI that explains why it wasn't caught the first time? Has additional testing of any kind been applied to this PR vs the prior one?

The previous PR passed... our e2e tests run a basic install with control plane and 2 workers, and a subset of the openshift conformance tests. What does this missing affect?

Basically we're not checking a few makefile targets (manifests, CRD and code generation, etc). The e2e worked because the binary built fine and worked correctly.

@dhellmann
Copy link

/assign @mhrivnak. PTAL at this PR, when you get a chance. A little context. The previous CAPI to MAO PR missed a few things, especially deepcopy and CRD generation. This PR remedies these overlooked parts. Many thanks.

Is there a gap in CI that explains why it wasn't caught the first time? Has additional testing of any kind been applied to this PR vs the prior one?

The previous PR passed... our e2e tests run a basic install with control plane and 2 workers, and a subset of the openshift conformance tests. What does this missing affect?

Basically we're not checking a few makefile targets (manifests, CRD and code generation, etc). The e2e worked because the binary built fine and worked correctly.

Do we have a ticket for adding test jobs for those missing checks?

@kirankt
Copy link
Author

kirankt commented Jun 9, 2020

/assign @mhrivnak. PTAL at this PR, when you get a chance. A little context. The previous CAPI to MAO PR missed a few things, especially deepcopy and CRD generation. This PR remedies these overlooked parts. Many thanks.

Is there a gap in CI that explains why it wasn't caught the first time? Has additional testing of any kind been applied to this PR vs the prior one?

The previous PR passed... our e2e tests run a basic install with control plane and 2 workers, and a subset of the openshift conformance tests. What does this missing affect?

Basically we're not checking a few makefile targets (manifests, CRD and code generation, etc). The e2e worked because the binary built fine and worked correctly.

Do we have a ticket for adding test jobs for those missing checks?

We don't. I'll add one right away.

@kirankt
Copy link
Author

kirankt commented Jun 11, 2020

/retitle Bug 1846420: Re-vendor dependencies for manifest and code generation with go modules

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot changed the title Re-vendor dependencies for manifest and code generation with go modules Bug 1846420: Re-vendor dependencies for manifest and code generation with go modules Jun 11, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the bugzilla/severity-medium Referenced Bugzilla bug's severity is medium for the branch this PR is targeting. label Jun 11, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@kirankt: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1846420, which is invalid:

  • expected the bug to target the "4.6.0" release, but it targets "---" instead

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

In response to this:

Bug 1846420: Re-vendor dependencies for manifest and code generation with go modules

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 openshift-ci-robot added the bugzilla/invalid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is invalid for the branch this PR is targeting. label Jun 11, 2020
@kirankt
Copy link
Author

kirankt commented Jun 11, 2020

/bugzilla refresh

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@kirankt: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1846420, which is invalid:

  • expected the bug to target the "4.6.0" release, but it targets "---" instead

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

In response to this:

/bugzilla 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.

@kirankt
Copy link
Author

kirankt commented Jun 11, 2020

/bugzilla refresh

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the bugzilla/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. label Jun 11, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@kirankt: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1846420, 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 release (4.6.0) matches configured target release for branch (4.6.0)
  • bug is in the state NEW, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, ON_DEV, POST, POST)

In response to this:

/bugzilla 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.

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the bugzilla/invalid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is invalid for the branch this PR is targeting. label Jun 11, 2020
@kirankt kirankt mentioned this pull request Jun 17, 2020
Merged
@kirankt
Copy link
Author

kirankt commented Jun 17, 2020 •
edited

Can a I get a LGTM, please? I have a PR open to add CI jobs to catch these in the future:
openshift/release#9713.

This current PR provides the appropriate vendor files for the CI PR to correctly pass its tests.

dhellmann
dhellmann reviewed Jun 17, 2020
View reviewed changes
Copy link

@dhellmann dhellmann left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

/approve
/lgtm

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

10 similar comments
@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@kirankt
Copy link
Author

kirankt commented Jun 18, 2020

/test e2e-metal-ipi

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

4 similar comments
@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@kirankt
Copy link
Author

kirankt commented Jun 19, 2020

/test e2e-metal-ipi

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

8 similar comments
@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit 4cf51bb into openshift:master Jun 20, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@kirankt: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged: openshift/cluster-api-provider-baremetal#72. Bugzilla bug 1846420 has been moved to the MODIFIED state.

In response to this:

Bug 1846420: Re-vendor dependencies for manifest and code generation with go modules

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.

@n1r1 n1r1 mentioned this pull request Jul 6, 2020
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@dhellmann dhellmann dhellmann left review comments

@sadasu sadasu sadasu approved these changes

@russellb russellb Awaiting requested review from russellb

Assignees

@dhellmann dhellmann

Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. bugzilla/severity-medium Referenced Bugzilla bug's severity is medium for the branch this PR is targeting. bugzilla/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
10 participants
@kirankt @n1r1 @mhrivnak @stbenjam @zaneb @dhellmann @openshift-ci-robot @openshift-bot @sadasu @openshift-merge-robot