Bug 1935473: Include LB members for Machines created on day-2 operation #1002
Conversation
The ports created for master VMs created on day-2 operation have a different name pattern than the ones created on a regular installation making it impossible for the CNO to identify it and create a new member. This commit fixes the issue by takeing into account the extra name pattern.
|
@MaysaMacedo: No Bugzilla bug is referenced in the title of this pull request. 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. |
MaysaMacedo
changed the title
openshift-ci-robot
added
bugzilla/severity-high
|
@MaysaMacedo: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1935473, which is invalid:
Comment 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. |
|
/lgtm |
openshift-ci-robot
added
lgtm
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
3 similar comments
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/bugzilla refresh Recalculating validity in case the underlying Bugzilla bug has changed. |
|
@openshift-bot: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1935473, which is invalid:
Comment 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. |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
11 similar comments
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
@openshift-bot: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1935473, which is invalid:
Comment 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. |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
3 similar comments
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/bugzilla refresh Recalculating validity in case the underlying Bugzilla bug has changed. |
|
@openshift-bot: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1935473, which is invalid:
Comment 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. |
|
/bugzilla refresh Recalculating validity in case the underlying Bugzilla bug has changed. |
|
@openshift-bot: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1935473, which is invalid:
Comment 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. |
|
/bugzilla refresh |
openshift-ci-robot
added
bugzilla/valid-bug
|
@MaysaMacedo: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1935473, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state. The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker. 6 validation(s) were run on this bug
No GitHub users were found matching the public email listed for the QA contact in Bugzilla (gcheresh@redhat.com), skipping review request. 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. |
| @@ -575,8 +575,12 @@ func BootstrapKuryr(conf *operv1.NetworkSpec, kubeClient client.Client) (*bootst | |||
| // the API. With healthchecks enabled for the pool we'll get masters added automatically | |||
| // when they're up and ready. | |||
| log.Print("Creating OpenShift API loadbalancer pool members") | |||
| r, _ := regexp.Compile(fmt.Sprintf("^%s-(master-port-[0-9]+|bootstrap-port)$", clusterID)) | |||
| r, _ := regexp.Compile(fmt.Sprintf("^%s-(master-port-[0-9]+|bootstrap-port+|master-[0-9])$", clusterID)) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This expression looks incorrect. I believe it should instead read: ^%s-(master-port-[0-9]+|bootstrap-port|master-[0-9]+)$. As it's written, "bootstrap-portttttttttttttttttt" will match and "master-10" will not (though "master-port-10" will).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks again for spotting this issue. With CI cooperation the fix on main branch can be merged by tomorrow and be included in this backport.
crawford
added
the
do-not-merge/cherry-pick-not-approved
Due to wrong place of usage of '+' the current regex that handles Ports names allows the following name of ports: 'ostest-7g27t-bootstrap-porttt' and not 'ostest-7g27t-master-port-10', which is wrong as the installer supports the latter, but not the former. This commit fixes the issue by including '+' in the correct place.
|
/lgtm |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: dulek, MaysaMacedo 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 |
|
/test e2e-ovn-step-registry |
crawford
added
cherry-pick-approved
|
@MaysaMacedo: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged: Bugzilla bug 1935473 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 kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
|
/cherry-pick release-4.6 |
|
@MaysaMacedo: new pull request created: #1018 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. |
The ports created for master VMs created on day-2 operation
have a different name pattern than the ones created on a
regular installation making it impossible for the CNO to
identify it and create a new member. This commit fixes the
issue by takeing into account the extra name pattern.