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

install/0000_90_cluster-version-operator_02_servicemonitor: Alert summary/descriptions #547

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jun 15, 2021

Conversation

wking
Copy link
Member

@wking wking commented Apr 13, 2021

Catching up with upstream's move from message, as documented here.

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Apr 13, 2021
@wking
Copy link
Member Author

wking commented Apr 14, 2021

CC @openshift/sre-alert-sme, in case you want to review the proposed changes.

expr: |
max by (name, condition, endpoint) (cluster_operator_conditions{name="version", condition="Upgradeable", endpoint="metrics"} == 0)
for: 60m
labels:
severity: warning
- alert: ClusterOperatorDown
annotations:
message: Cluster operator {{ "{{ $labels.name }}" }} has not been available for 10 minutes. Operator may be down or disabled, cluster will not be kept up to date and upgrades will not be possible.
summary: Cluster operator has not been available for 10 minutes.
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

There is inconsistency here with
Cluster version operator vs Cluster operator https://github.com/openshift/cluster-version-operator/pull/547/files#diff-fabad9e1d73a4f70c3d47836ed62e1982b1c6fbb947fce9a633b9cb0a98ecb24R43

I would suggest updating all refs to use Cluster version operator.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ClusterVersionOperatorDown is only about the cluster-version operator deployment, so Cluster version operator is appropriate there.

ClusterOperatorDown and ClusterOperatorDegraded are about about the conditions on ClusterVersion and ClusterOperators, so the more generic Cluster operator is appropriate there.

Copy link
Member

@LalatenduMohanty LalatenduMohanty left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm

/hold for SRE folks approval

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Apr 20, 2021
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Apr 20, 2021
@dofinn
Copy link

dofinn commented Apr 20, 2021

/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: dofinn, LalatenduMohanty, wking

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 [LalatenduMohanty,wking]

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

@LalatenduMohanty
Copy link
Member

/hold cancel

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label May 4, 2021
@LalatenduMohanty
Copy link
Member

/retest

@wking
Copy link
Member Author

wking commented May 4, 2021

/hold

No bug, so we need to wait until 4.8 forks off and master opens for 4.9.

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label May 4, 2021
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label May 11, 2021
@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented May 11, 2021

@wking: PR needs rebase.

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 openshift-ci bot removed the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jun 14, 2021
@wking
Copy link
Member Author

wking commented Jun 14, 2021

Rebased onto master now that master is open for 4.9.

/hold cancel

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Jun 14, 2021
Copy link
Member

@LalatenduMohanty LalatenduMohanty left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jun 14, 2021
@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Jun 14, 2021

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: dofinn, LalatenduMohanty, wking

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 [LalatenduMohanty,wking]

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

@wking wking removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jun 15, 2021
@wking
Copy link
Member Author

wking commented Jun 15, 2021

The HAProxy router should set Forwarded headers appropriately is unrelated.

/override ci/prow/e2e-agnostic

@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Jun 15, 2021

@wking: Overrode contexts on behalf of wking: ci/prow/e2e-agnostic

In response to this:

The HAProxy router should set Forwarded headers appropriately is unrelated.

/override ci/prow/e2e-agnostic

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.

@wking
Copy link
Member Author

wking commented Jun 15, 2021

pods should successfully create sandboxes by other and etcdHighNumberOfLeaderChanges are unrelated.

/override ci/prow/e2e-agnostic-upgrade

@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Jun 15, 2021

@wking: Overrode contexts on behalf of wking: ci/prow/e2e-agnostic-upgrade

In response to this:

pods should successfully create sandboxes by other and etcdHighNumberOfLeaderChanges are unrelated.

/override ci/prow/e2e-agnostic-upgrade

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.

@wking
Copy link
Member Author

wking commented Jun 15, 2021

gather-audit-logs flake is unrelated:

/override ci/prow/e2e-agnostic-operator

@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Jun 15, 2021

@wking: Overrode contexts on behalf of wking: ci/prow/e2e-agnostic-operator

In response to this:

gather-audit-logs flake is unrelated:

/override ci/prow/e2e-agnostic-operator

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.

@wking
Copy link
Member Author

wking commented Jun 15, 2021

etcdHighNumberOfLeaderChanges and API-server connectivity are unrelated.

/override ci/prow/e2e-agnostic-upgrade

@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Jun 15, 2021

@wking: Overrode contexts on behalf of wking: ci/prow/e2e-agnostic-upgrade

In response to this:

etcdHighNumberOfLeaderChanges and API-server connectivity are unrelated.

/override ci/prow/e2e-agnostic-upgrade

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.

@wking
Copy link
Member Author

wking commented Jun 15, 2021

/override ci/prow/e2e-agnostic

We've passed that one before, and this change is unrelated to other recent master changes.

@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Jun 15, 2021

@wking: Overrode contexts on behalf of wking: ci/prow/e2e-agnostic

In response to this:

/override ci/prow/e2e-agnostic

We've passed that one before, and this change is unrelated to other recent master changes.

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.

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. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants