OCPBUGS-33787: Tolerate the absence of ingress capability on HyperShift clusters #886

alebedev87 · 2024-04-09T15:33:43Z

Part of the implementation of Make Ingress optional for HyperShift EP. Note that this change targets only HyperShift managed deployments and should not impact standalone OpenShift installations.

This PR:

Implements alternative ingress fields from the console operator config API
Skips component route customizations if ingress capability is disabled
Uses NodePort type for console and downloads services if ingress capability is disabled
Adds document to describe how to implement alternative ingress on ROSA

openshift-ci-robot · 2024-04-09T15:33:46Z

@alebedev87: This pull request references NE-1319 which is a valid jira issue.

Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the story to target the "4.16.0" version, but no target version was set.

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.

openshift-ci · 2024-04-09T15:33:49Z

Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request.
If you want CI signal for your change, please convert it to an actual PR.
You can still manually trigger a test run with /test all

openshift-ci-robot · 2024-04-19T15:08:47Z

@alebedev87: This pull request references NE-1319 which is a valid jira issue.

Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the story to target the "4.16.0" version, but no target version was set.

In response to this:

Part of the implementation of Make Ingress optional for HyperShift EP. This PR skips some checks which rely on admitted routes. Note that this change targets only HyperShift managed deployments and should not impact standalone OpenShift installations.

Manual test:

$ oc version
Client Version: 4.14.3
Kustomize Version: v5.0.1
Server Version: 4.16.0-0.nightly-2024-04-18-141003
Kubernetes Version: v1.29.3+5fa1806


# CVO scaled down to be able to disable Ingress and set console operator image
$ oc -n openshift-cluster-version get pods
No resources found in openshift-cluster-version namespace.

# Ingress operator and its operand are NOT running
$ oc -n openshift-ingress-operator get pods
No resources found in openshift-ingress-operator namespace.

$ oc -n openshift-ingress get pods
No resources found in openshift-ingress namespace.

# Console operator has a locally built image with the diff from the PR
$ oc -n openshift-console-operator get pods
NAME                                          READY   STATUS    RESTARTS   AGE
console-conversion-webhook-76598bc896-frhdh   1/1     Running   0          112m
console-operator-c467cd58f-kn69q              1/1     Running   0          4m29s

$ oc -n openshift-console-operator get pods console-operator-c467cd58f-kn69q -o yaml | yq .spec.containers[0].image
quay.io/alebedev/console-operator:4.19.162

# Note the console operator remained Available while the authentication operator went Degarded
$ oc get co console authentication
NAME             VERSION                              AVAILABLE   PROGRESSING   DEGRADED   SINCE   MESSAGE
console          4.16.0-0.nightly-2024-04-18-141003   True        False         False      9m37s   
authentication   4.16.0-0.nightly-2024-04-18-141003   False       False         False      54s     OAuthServerRouteEndpointAccessibleControllerAvailable: Get "https://oauth-openshift.apps.ci-ln-v8xxvwt-76ef8.origin-ci-int-aws.dev.rhcloud.com/healthz": EOF

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-robot · 2024-04-19T15:09:13Z

@alebedev87: This pull request references NE-1319 which is a valid jira issue.

Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the story to target the "4.16.0" version, but no target version was set.

In response to this:

Part of the implementation of Make Ingress optional for HyperShift EP. This PR skips some checks which rely on admitted routes. Note that this change targets only HyperShift managed deployments and should not impact standalone OpenShift installations.

Manual test:

$ oc version
Client Version: 4.14.3
Kustomize Version: v5.0.1
Server Version: 4.16.0-0.nightly-2024-04-18-141003
Kubernetes Version: v1.29.3+5fa1806

# CVO scaled down to be able to disable Ingress and set console operator image
$ oc -n openshift-cluster-version get pods
No resources found in openshift-cluster-version namespace.

# Ingress operator and its operand are NOT running
$ oc -n openshift-ingress-operator get pods
No resources found in openshift-ingress-operator namespace.

$ oc -n openshift-ingress get pods
No resources found in openshift-ingress namespace.

# Console operator has a locally built image with the diff from the PR
$ oc -n openshift-console-operator get pods
NAME                                          READY   STATUS    RESTARTS   AGE
console-conversion-webhook-76598bc896-frhdh   1/1     Running   0          112m
console-operator-c467cd58f-kn69q              1/1     Running   0          4m29s

$ oc -n openshift-console-operator get pods console-operator-c467cd58f-kn69q -o yaml | yq .spec.containers[0].image
quay.io/alebedev/console-operator:4.19.162

# Note the console operator remained Available while the authentication operator went Degarded
$ oc get co console authentication
NAME             VERSION                              AVAILABLE   PROGRESSING   DEGRADED   SINCE   MESSAGE
console          4.16.0-0.nightly-2024-04-18-141003   True        False         False      9m37s   
authentication   4.16.0-0.nightly-2024-04-18-141003   False       False         False      54s     OAuthServerRouteEndpointAccessibleControllerAvailable: Get "https://oauth-openshift.apps.ci-ln-v8xxvwt-76ef8.origin-ci-int-aws.dev.rhcloud.com/healthz": EOF

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.

alebedev87 · 2024-04-21T21:54:41Z

/retest

jhadvig

Thanks @alebedev87
This change does not make the operator to go downgraded when the ingress is disabled but whats basically because you are prematurely exiting all of the updated controllers. I doubt that the console will be working in this state.
Have you tested it ?

jhadvig · 2024-04-23T14:03:38Z

pkg/console/controllers/clidownloads/controller.go

@@ -114,8 +121,27 @@ func (c *CLIDownloadsSyncController) Sync(ctx context.Context, controllerContext
 	}

 	statusHandler := status.NewStatusHandler(c.operatorClient)
+
+	infrastructureConfig, err := c.infrastructureClient.Get(ctx, api.ConfigResourceName, metav1.GetOptions{})


If the ingress can be enabled/disabled during the clusters lifecycle then we need to keep the fetching logic per controller, but we need to use listers rather then client.
If the ingress can be re-enabled then please move the fetching logic starter.go and pass the config to each of the controllers.

On the standalone OpenShift the Ingress capability will always be enabled. On HyperShift: once enabled it cannot be disabled.

jhadvig · 2024-04-23T14:05:01Z

pkg/console/controllers/route/controller.go

+	}
+
+	// Disable the route check for external control plane topology (hypershift) if the ingress capability is disabled.
+	if util.IsExternalControlPlaneWithIngressDisabled(infrastructureConfig, clusterVersionConfig) {


by doing this you are basically disabling the operator from doing its work by syncing the console routes.

@jhadvig: From what I see both of the functions used by the route controller (SyncCustomRoute,SyncDefaultRoute) are related to the component route implementation (custom hostname or tls). The component routes are not supported on HyperShift, so I think we are safe to skip them.

@csrwng: can you please confirm that the component routes are not supported on HyperShift?

That is correct. If you've disabled ingress you are also indirectly disabling component routes, no?

Right, I put my followup comment into a wrong conversation. Here it is:

Also, in the absence of the ingress operator the required RBAC won't be created for the components (including the console operator): Component routes chapter of the EP.

jhadvig · 2024-04-23T14:05:20Z

pkg/console/controllers/oauthclients/oauthclients.go

+
+	// Disable the oauth client update for external control plane topology (hypershift) if the ingress capability is disabled.
+	// HyperShift handles the updating of the oauth client for the console.
+	if util.IsExternalControlPlaneWithIngressDisabled(infrastructureConfig, clusterVersionConfig) {


by doing this you are basically disabling the operator from doing its work by syncing the console oauthclients.

By "syncing the console oauthclients" you mean adding redirectURI? From what I understand this part will be handled by HyperShift as it takes care of some of the OAuthClients already. I suppose it's because the authentication server is not exposed via a route.

@csrwng: What do you think? If we don't disable the updates of OAuthClient the console operator will go degraded. However it's not yet clear what should be put as the redirectURI in case the ingress is disabled.

Makes sense to disable updates of the OAuthClient

The new API has been implemented to support an alternative ingress.

jhadvig · 2024-04-23T14:05:48Z

pkg/console/controllers/clidownloads/controller.go

+	}
+
+	// Disable the client download check for external control plane topology (hypershift) if the ingress capability is disabled.
+	if controllersutil.IsExternalControlPlaneWithIngressDisabled(infrastructureConfig, clusterVersionConfig) {


by doing this you are basically disabling the operator from doing its work by syncing the console CLI downloads CRDs.

Right, oc-cli-downloads contains the links to download the oc client from the download route:

$ oc get consoleclidownloads oc-cli-downloads -o yaml | yq .spec.links[].href https://downloads-openshift-console.apps.alebedev-0424.devcluster.openshift.com/amd64/linux/oc.tar https://downloads-openshift-console.apps.alebedev-0424.devcluster.openshift.com/amd64/mac/oc.zip https://downloads-openshift-console.apps.alebedev-0424.devcluster.openshift.com/amd64/windows/oc.zip https://downloads-openshift-console.apps.alebedev-0424.devcluster.openshift.com/arm64/linux/oc.tar https://downloads-openshift-console.apps.alebedev-0424.devcluster.openshift.com/arm64/mac/oc.zip https://downloads-openshift-console.apps.alebedev-0424.devcluster.openshift.com/ppc64le/linux/oc.tar https://downloads-openshift-console.apps.alebedev-0424.devcluster.openshift.com/s390x/linux/oc.tar https://downloads-openshift-console.apps.alebedev-0424.devcluster.openshift.com/oc-license

So, the risk is to have the broken links in /command-line-tools path of the console UI.

@csrwng : can we accept the risk I described above?

Then we should be also prematurely exiting the DownloadsDeployment controller and remove the deployment itself.

The new API has been implemented to setup alternative ingress for the downloads.

alebedev87 · 2024-04-23T20:31:46Z

I doubt that the console will be working in this state. Have you tested it ?

Yes. You are right, the console is not not working out of the box because the routes are left unserved. I was playing with AWS Load Balancer Operator (ALBO) to find the right Ingress configuration to make the console work without routes. I managed to find it but it sill has some gaps:

the console service should be of type NodePort to work with the AWS ALB. This can be treated as a gap in the console operator which we can address later (on demand).
the redirect to the oauth server (at the login time) still uses the oauth route despite the fact that I changed all OAuth clients to use the AWS ALBs provisioned by the aws-lb-controller. This part may be configurable though, I may just miss some console knowledge.

alebedev87 · 2024-04-24T10:28:40Z

/retest

alebedev87 · 2024-04-24T17:24:37Z

Rebased from master to fix the merge conflict.

alebedev87 · 2024-04-24T17:25:23Z

/assign @jhadvig

alebedev87 · 2024-04-24T20:48:28Z

/retest

jhadvig · 2024-04-25T09:27:10Z

Yes. You are right, the console is not not working out of the box because the routes are left unserved. I was playing with AWS Load Balancer Operator (ALBO) to find the right Ingress configuration to make the console work without routes. I managed to find it but it sill has some gaps:

the console service should be of type NodePort to work with the AWS ALB. This can be treated as a gap in the console operator which we can address later (on demand).

So this case will need to be handle in the service controller, which will then update the service spec accordingly. If I understand it, console itself wont be available though the service if the NodePort is not set? If thats the case I think it needs to be address in this change.

the redirect to the oauth server (at the login time) still uses the oauth route despite the fact that I changed all OAuth clients to use the AWS ALBs provisioned by the aws-lb-controller. This part may be configurable though, I may just miss some console knowledge.

Are these steps documented somewhere?

I feel like there is too many gaps - in order to merge this change. What would be the benefit for Hypershift user if he disables the Ingress capability, but the console wont be working? I feel that at minimum we should have a documented way how to make the console work.
Also this will need to be tested with QE before merging and they will need to know the steps how to:

setup the env (hypershift with disabled ingress capability)
after which they will test the non-functional console. In which case they will assume that its a bug. Therefor they will need a reproduction steps how to make console work.

spadgett · 2024-04-30T13:42:01Z

I doubt that the console will be working in this state. Have you tested it ?

Yes. You are right, the console is not not working out of the box because the routes are left unserved. I was playing with AWS Load Balancer Operator (ALBO) to find the right Ingress configuration to make the console work without routes. I managed to find it but it sill has some gaps:

the console service should be of type NodePort to work with the AWS ALB. This can be treated as a gap in the console operator which we can address later (on demand).

the redirect to the oauth server (at the login time) still uses the oauth route despite the fact that I changed all OAuth clients to use the AWS ALBs provisioned by the aws-lb-controller. This part may be configurable though, I may just miss some console knowledge.

Should we simply disable console for now if we know it won't work, even with manual load balancer configuration?

The console reads the OAuth URLs from the well-known endpoint. If the OAuth metadata can be updated in that document, console should discover the right URL.

https://docs.openshift.com/container-platform/4.15/authentication/configuring-internal-oauth.html#oauth-server-metadata_configuring-internal-oauth

alebedev87 · 2024-04-30T14:57:28Z

Should we simply disable console for now if we know it won't work, even with manual load balancer configuration?

The console is still an important part of HyperShift based offerings like ROSA. The HyperShift engineers prefer the console to be running even without the default ingress (router). The way to expose it is a subject to a discussion, one of the ways to expose the console is described in the doc I added today.
However the console operator depends deeply on the router being present on the cluster. And we need to think pragmatically about what we can do in 4.16 release and what needs a follow up.

The console reads the OAuth URLs from the well-known endpoint. If the OAuth metadata can be updated in that document, console should discover the right URL.

ROSA HCP clusters already have the auth URL which is not an OpenShift route. This makes the authentication from console work smoothly even without the router.

jhadvig

Thanks a lot @alebedev87 for the PR. Looks good.
Adding couple of comments. PTAL

jhadvig · 2024-06-05T07:30:34Z

docs/alb-ingress-rosa-hcp.md

+The AWS Load Balancer Controller routes the traffic between cluster nodes.
+Therefore the services need to be exposed via a port on the node network:
+```bash
+cat <<EOF | oc apply -f -


These two services should be handled by the service controller, so there is less space for user error.
Lets add them to /bindata/assets/services/ as console-service-np and downloads-service-np

Added new node port service manifests and made them always applied.

jhadvig · 2024-06-05T07:34:44Z

docs/alb-ingress-rosa-hcp.md

+
+### Create Ingress resources for the services
+
+To provision ALBs create the following resources:


Wondering if this could be also done automatically by the console-operator if ALB setup is detected? I see that CERTIFICATE_ARN needs to be provided though. Could we fetch it from some CM or Secret on the cluster?

Wondering if this could be also done automatically by the console-operator if ALB setup is detected?

So far, we didn't see much automation around the certificate creation from the ALBO users. Probably because this requires quite some some effort to manage the cloud credentials. We can think about it as a followup enhancement.

jhadvig · 2024-06-05T07:36:33Z

docs/alb-ingress-rosa-hcp.md

+$ oc patch console.operator.openshift.io cluster --type=merge -p "{\"spec\":{\"ingress\":{\"consoleURL\":\"${CONSOLE_ALB_HOST}\",\"clientDownloadsURL\":\"${DOWNLOADS_ALB_HOST}\"}}}"
+```
+
+## Notes


jhadvig · 2024-06-05T07:38:36Z

docs/alb-ingress-rosa-hcp.md

+
+3. When the ingress capability is disabled, the console operator skips the implementation of the component route customization.
+
+4. To simulate a disabled ingress set the desired replicas to zero in the default ingress controller:


Right, but will this simulation set the routes to be un-Admitted ? Asking just to have a better understanding.

No, the routes will still be admitted. I rephrased it to:

To simulate the absence of ingress connectivity when the ingress capability is disabled, set the desired replicas to zero in the default ingress controller

jhadvig · 2024-06-05T07:48:39Z

pkg/console/controllers/route/controller.go

+	}
+
+	// Do not proceed to the console route checks if alernative ingress is requested.
+	if len(operatorConfig.Spec.Ingress.ConsoleURL) != 0 {


Lets do this at the beginning. It will be cheaper to return prematurely since we have the operatorConfig at the beginning.

Also this controller is running in two instances, one for the console route and the other one for the downloads route.
Check https://github.com/openshift/console-operator/blob/master/pkg/console/starter/starter.go#L363-L395

Moved upper and took the download instance into account.

jhadvig · 2024-06-05T07:55:01Z

pkg/console/controllers/util/util_test.go

@@ -141,3 +143,85 @@ func TestLabelFilter(t *testing.T) {
 	}

 }
+
+func TestIsExternalControlPlaneWithIngressDisabled(t *testing.T) {


jhadvig · 2024-06-05T08:04:55Z

pkg/console/subresource/configmap/configmap.go

@@ -47,12 +47,13 @@ func DefaultConfigMap(
 	nodeOperatingSystems []string,
 	copiedCSVsDisabled bool,
 	telemeterConfig map[string]string,
+	consoleHost string,


I see the point of adding this additional param, but I would rather avoid it, since for the non ALB setup, consoleHost will be the same as the host int the activeConsoleRoute.spec.
Lets rather create a new struct, which would include both of these types.

since for the non ALB setup, consoleHost will be the same as the host int the activeConsoleRoute.spec

Well, most of the time it's true. The route.spec.host is assigned automatically by the apiserver from the default ingress domain without the knowledge about the inrgesscontrollers which is only present in the route's status. That's why in operator/sync_v400.go I pass down the url returned by routesub.GetActiveRouteInfo() which returns only the admitted host.

alebedev87 · 2024-06-05T21:03:41Z

Always apply nodeport services, to avoid the chicken and egg problem with alternative ingress: Ingress needs a nodeport service before it can provision a LB whose host we need to configure console.operator.spec.ingress.

alebedev87 · 2024-06-06T05:39:26Z

/retest

alebedev87 · 2024-06-06T11:54:10Z

ConsoleURL removed from configmap config as it's not a customization but API.

openshift-ci-robot · 2024-06-06T14:51:33Z

@alebedev87: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-33787, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

bug is open, matching expected state (open)
bug target version (4.17.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.17.0)
bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @melvinjoseph86

In response to this:

Part of the implementation of Make Ingress optional for HyperShift EP. Note that this change targets only HyperShift managed deployments and should not impact standalone OpenShift installations.

This PR:

Implements alternative ingress fields from the console operator config API

Skips component route customizations if ingress capability is disabled

Uses NodePort type for console and downloads services if ingress capability is disabled

Adds document to describe how to implement alternative ingress on ROSA

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.

alebedev87 · 2024-06-06T14:53:08Z

As discussed with @jhadvig: create NodePort service only for clusters with disabled ingress capability.

…ft clusters - Implement alternative ingress fields from the console operator config API - Skip component route customizations if ingress capability is disabled - Use NodePort type for console and downloads services if ingress capability is disabled - Add document to describe how to implement alternative ingress on ROSA

alebedev87 · 2024-06-06T15:57:17Z

docs/alb-ingress-rosa-hcp.md still had *-np services mentioned.

alebedev87 · 2024-06-06T16:57:20Z

/retest

alebedev87 · 2024-06-06T20:51:34Z

/retest

CI outage.

alebedev87 · 2024-06-07T12:38:21Z

e2e-aws-console test is unstable and needs to be overridden like we did for #907.

jhadvig · 2024-06-07T12:44:11Z

Thanks @alebedev87 for the PR. LGTM
/lgtm
/retest

openshift-ci · 2024-06-07T12:45:20Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: alebedev87, jhadvig

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~~ [jhadvig]

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

openshift-ci-robot · 2024-06-07T15:27:44Z

/retest-required

Remaining retests: 0 against base HEAD d4bac3a and 2 for PR HEAD 7c4d777 in total

jhadvig · 2024-06-10T09:25:57Z

Overriding the TC due to flaking e2e test
/override ci/prow/e2e-aws-console

openshift-ci · 2024-06-10T09:28:10Z

@jhadvig: Overrode contexts on behalf of jhadvig: ci/prow/e2e-aws-console

In response to this:

Overriding the TC due to flaking e2e test
/override ci/prow/e2e-aws-console

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-sigs/prow repository.

openshift-ci · 2024-06-10T09:28:17Z

@alebedev87: 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-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

openshift-ci-robot · 2024-06-10T09:31:29Z

@alebedev87: Jira Issue OCPBUGS-33787: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged:

Jira Issue OCPBUGS-33787 has been moved to the MODIFIED state.

In response to this:

Part of the implementation of Make Ingress optional for HyperShift EP. Note that this change targets only HyperShift managed deployments and should not impact standalone OpenShift installations.

This PR:

Implements alternative ingress fields from the console operator config API

Skips component route customizations if ingress capability is disabled

Uses NodePort type for console and downloads services if ingress capability is disabled

Adds document to describe how to implement alternative ingress on ROSA

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-bot · 2024-06-10T18:06:13Z

[ART PR BUILD NOTIFIER]

This PR has been included in build openshift-enterprise-console-operator-container-v4.17.0-202406101611.p0.gc608dec.assembly.stream.el9 for distgit openshift-enterprise-console-operator.
All builds following this will include this PR.

openshift-ci-robot added the jira/valid-reference Indicates that this PR references a valid Jira ticket of any type. label Apr 9, 2024

openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Apr 9, 2024

openshift-merge-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Apr 10, 2024

alebedev87 force-pushed the tolerate-ingress-absence branch 2 times, most recently from cc41180 to 5e8103c Compare April 17, 2024 07:25

openshift-merge-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Apr 17, 2024

alebedev87 changed the title ~~NE-1319: disable health check if ingress capability is disabled~~ NE-1319: disable route checks if ingress capability is disabled Apr 17, 2024

alebedev87 force-pushed the tolerate-ingress-absence branch from 5e8103c to 8f3a66e Compare April 19, 2024 14:56

alebedev87 marked this pull request as ready for review April 19, 2024 15:09

openshift-ci bot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Apr 19, 2024

openshift-ci bot requested review from jhadvig and spadgett April 19, 2024 15:09

jhadvig requested changes Apr 23, 2024

View reviewed changes

alebedev87 force-pushed the tolerate-ingress-absence branch from 8f3a66e to c206e4e Compare April 24, 2024 17:23

openshift-ci bot assigned jhadvig Apr 24, 2024

openshift-merge-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label May 6, 2024

alebedev87 changed the title ~~NE-1319: disable route checks if ingress capability is disabled~~ NE-1319: tolerate the absence of ingress capability on HyperShift clusters May 6, 2024

jhadvig reviewed Jun 5, 2024

View reviewed changes

alebedev87 force-pushed the tolerate-ingress-absence branch 3 times, most recently from beb12ae to 47090ae Compare June 5, 2024 21:01

alebedev87 force-pushed the tolerate-ingress-absence branch from 47090ae to 35e503b Compare June 6, 2024 09:57

alebedev87 force-pushed the tolerate-ingress-absence branch from 35e503b to 24f4886 Compare June 6, 2024 14:49

openshift-ci bot requested a review from melvinjoseph86 June 6, 2024 14:51

alebedev87 force-pushed the tolerate-ingress-absence branch from 24f4886 to 7c4d777 Compare June 6, 2024 15:56

alebedev87 mentioned this pull request Jun 7, 2024

[release-4.16] OCPBUGS-33788: Tolerate the absence of ingress capability on HyperShift clusters #910

Open

openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jun 7, 2024

openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Jun 7, 2024

openshift-merge-bot bot merged commit c608dec into openshift:master Jun 10, 2024
9 checks passed


		### Create Ingress resources for the services

		To provision ALBs create the following resources:


		3. When the ingress capability is disabled, the console operator skips the implementation of the component route customization.

		4. To simulate a disabled ingress set the desired replicas to zero in the default ingress controller:

OCPBUGS-33787: Tolerate the absence of ingress capability on HyperShift clusters #886

OCPBUGS-33787: Tolerate the absence of ingress capability on HyperShift clusters #886

Conversation

alebedev87 commented Apr 9, 2024 • edited

openshift-ci-robot commented Apr 9, 2024 • edited by openshift-ci bot

openshift-ci bot commented Apr 9, 2024

openshift-ci-robot commented Apr 19, 2024 • edited by openshift-ci bot

openshift-ci-robot commented Apr 19, 2024 • edited by openshift-ci bot

alebedev87 commented Apr 21, 2024

jhadvig left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

alebedev87 Apr 24, 2024 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

alebedev87 commented Apr 23, 2024 • edited

alebedev87 commented Apr 24, 2024

alebedev87 commented Apr 24, 2024

alebedev87 commented Apr 24, 2024

alebedev87 commented Apr 24, 2024

jhadvig commented Apr 25, 2024

spadgett commented Apr 30, 2024

alebedev87 commented Apr 30, 2024

jhadvig left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

alebedev87 Jun 5, 2024 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

alebedev87 Jun 5, 2024 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

alebedev87 Jun 5, 2024 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

alebedev87 commented Jun 5, 2024

alebedev87 commented Jun 6, 2024

alebedev87 commented Jun 6, 2024

openshift-ci-robot commented Jun 6, 2024

alebedev87 commented Jun 6, 2024

alebedev87 commented Jun 6, 2024

alebedev87 commented Jun 6, 2024

alebedev87 commented Jun 6, 2024

alebedev87 commented Jun 7, 2024

jhadvig commented Jun 7, 2024

openshift-ci bot commented Jun 7, 2024

openshift-ci-robot commented Jun 7, 2024

jhadvig commented Jun 10, 2024

openshift-ci bot commented Jun 10, 2024

openshift-ci bot commented Jun 10, 2024

openshift-ci-robot commented Jun 10, 2024

openshift-bot commented Jun 10, 2024

alebedev87 commented Apr 9, 2024 •

edited

openshift-ci-robot commented Apr 9, 2024 •

edited by openshift-ci bot

openshift-ci-robot commented Apr 19, 2024 •

edited by openshift-ci bot

openshift-ci-robot commented Apr 19, 2024 •

edited by openshift-ci bot

alebedev87 Apr 24, 2024 •

edited

alebedev87 commented Apr 23, 2024 •

edited

alebedev87 Jun 5, 2024 •

edited

alebedev87 Jun 5, 2024 •

edited

alebedev87 Jun 5, 2024 •

edited