Bug 2070887: pkg/cvo/sync_worker.go: set implicitly enabled caps earlier #761
Conversation
openshift-ci
bot
added
bugzilla/severity-medium
|
@jottofar: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 2070887, 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. 3 validation(s) were run on this bug
Requesting review from QA contact: 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. |
|
@jottofar: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 2070887, which is valid. 3 validation(s) were run on this bug
Requesting review from QA contact: 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. |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
approved
|
/retest |
pkg/cvo/sync_worker.go
Outdated
| @@ -401,14 +401,16 @@ func (w *SyncWorker) Update(ctx context.Context, generation int64, desired confi | |||
|
|
|||
| work.Capabilities = capability.SetCapabilities(config, priorCaps) | |||
|
|
|||
| // needs to be set here since changes in implicitly enabled capabilities are not considered a "capabilities change" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But:
equalSyncWorkusesClusterCapabilities.Equal, andClusterCapabilities.Equalonly looks atEnabledCapabilities.
I think we may want to change this line to:
capabilitiesError := a.Capabilities.Equal(&b.Capabilities)
...
if capabilitiesError != nil {
msgs = append(msgs, fmt.Sprintf("capabilities changed (%v)", capabilitiesChanged))
}So we don't have to make local guesses about how the caps changed, but I don't understand where ImplicitlyEnabledCaps / ImplicitlyEnabledCapabilities is coming into this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we may want to change this line to...
I've floated #762 with this tweak.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
oh, I think I understand now. This isn't about adjusting what equalSyncWork does, it's about ensuring the new ImplicitlyEnabledCapabilities make it through to w.status.CapabilitiesStatus.ImplicitlyEnabledCaps, regardless of where this function later returns. Can we make that distinction a bit more obvious with something like:
versionEqual, overridesEqual, capabilitiesEqual :=
equalSyncWork(w.work, work, fmt.Sprintf("considering cluster version generation %d", generation))
// Changes to implicitly enabled capabilities are not considered a "capabilities change",
// but still need to be propagated through and reported in status.
w.status.CapabilitiesStatus.ImplicitlyEnabledCaps = work.Capabilities.ImplicitlyEnabledCapabilities
if versionEqual && overridesEqual && capabilitiesEqual {
...If the positioning you have today makes more sense than what I'm suggesting here, that's fine with me too.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm, maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment and suggestion but let me try and explain my change and reasoning again. The capability.Equal works fine as is and there's no "guessing" about how caps have changed.
- The only caps change we care about for the purposes of an update are changes to
EnabledCapabilities.Equalworks correctly in this regard. - We only care about
ImplicitlyEnabledCapabilitiesfor purposes of capturing them in status.
So for example, post-install C1 and C2 are enabled. Admin then changes C2 to disabled. On next Update SetCapabilities will set C2 back to enabled and save C2 into ImplicitlyEnabledCapabilities. equalSyncWork properly returns no change since EnabledCapabilities haven't changed. Before my change Update would return here before w.status.CapabilitiesStatus.ImplicitlyEnabledCaps was updated.
|
/lgtm |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: jottofar, 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:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
/retest |
1 similar comment
|
/retest |
|
/retest-required Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
2 similar comments
|
/retest-required Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest-required Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
@jottofar: 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. |
|
@jottofar: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged: Bugzilla bug 2070887 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. |
since implicitly enabled capability changes do not trigger !capabilitiesEqual so we return before setting the status.