[release-4.9] Bug 2004241: Storage class name not passed in CR

[openshift-cherrypick-robot]

This is an automated cherry-pick of #10064

/assign afreen23

[openshift-ci]

@openshift-cherrypick-robot: Bugzilla bug 2003651 has been cloned as Bugzilla bug 2004241. Retitling PR to link against new bug.
/retitle [release-4.9] Bug 2004241: Storage class name not passed in CR

In response to this:

[release-4.9] Bug 2003651: Storage class name not passed in CR

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-cherrypick-robot: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 2004241, 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

• bug is open, matching expected state (open)
• bug target release (4.9.0) matches configured target release for branch (4.9.0)
• bug is in the state NEW, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, ON_DEV, POST, POST)
• dependent bug Bugzilla bug 2003651 is in the state MODIFIED, which is one of the valid states (MODIFIED, ON_QA, VERIFIED)
• dependent Bugzilla bug 2003651 targets the "4.10.0" release, which is one of the valid target releases: 4.10.0
• bug has dependents

No GitHub users were found matching the public email listed for the QA contact in Bugzilla (ratamir@redhat.com), skipping review request.

In response to this:

[release-4.9] Bug 2004241: Storage class name not passed in CR

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.

[cloudbehl]

/lgtm

[afreen23]

/bugzilla refresh

[openshift-ci]

@afreen23: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 2004241, which is invalid:

• expected the bug to target the "4.9.0" release, but it targets "4.9.z" 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.

[afreen23]

/bugzilla refresh

[openshift-ci]

@afreen23: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 2004241, which is valid.

6 validation(s) were run on this bug

• bug is open, matching expected state (open)
• bug target release (4.9.0) matches configured target release for branch (4.9.0)
• bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, ON_DEV, POST, POST)
• dependent bug Bugzilla bug 2003651 is in the state ON_QA, which is one of the valid states (MODIFIED, ON_QA, VERIFIED)
• dependent Bugzilla bug 2003651 targets the "4.10.0" release, which is one of the valid target releases: 4.10.0
• bug has dependents

No GitHub users were found matching the public email listed for the QA contact in Bugzilla (ratamir@redhat.com), skipping review request.

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.

[bipuladh]

/lgtm

[bipuladh]

/approve

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: bipuladh, cloudbehl, openshift-cherrypick-robot

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:

• frontend/packages/ceph-storage-plugin/OWNERS [bipuladh,cloudbehl]

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

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: bipuladh, cloudbehl, openshift-cherrypick-robot

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:

• frontend/packages/ceph-storage-plugin/OWNERS [bipuladh,cloudbehl]

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

[bparees]

@spadgett @christianvogt since we're past code freeze for 4.9, this can't merge without a staff-eng approval. As the console team doesn't have a staff eng representative at the moment, i'm prepared to proxy that approval from one of the two of you, as long as you understand the risk/reward tradeoffs associated w/ merging a change post-CF. We should only be doing it for things that absolutely can't wait for a 4.9.z.

[afreen23]

@spadgett @christianvogt since we're past code freeze for 4.9, this can't merge without a staff-eng approval. As the console team doesn't have a staff eng representative at the moment, i'm prepared to proxy that approval from one of the two of you, as long as you understand the risk/reward tradeoffs associated w/ merging a change post-CF. We should only be doing it for things that absolutely can't wait for a 4.9.z.

Just to give the background, this is a test blocker for QE. If 4.9.z is not so far , we can wait.
Thanks for taking a look.

[bparees]

Just to give the background, this is a test blocker for QE. If 4.9.z is not so far , we can wait.

not sure what our historical average is on weeks to the first .z release after the .0, but it should be O(weeks) after 4.9GA.

that said, 4.9.0 doesn't GA until Oct 18th, so you're looking at early november

if QE needs a build that they can test with, we have tools for producing builds for them, though that would include this PR on top of 4.9. (or they can use a 4.10 build?)

[afreen23]

Just to give the background, this is a test blocker for QE. If 4.9.z is not so far , we can wait.

not sure what our historical average is on weeks to the first .z release after the .0, but it should be O(weeks) after 4.9GA.

that said, 4.9.0 doesn't GA until Oct 18th, so you're looking at early november

Ack, that sounds fine then. It can be waited considering its not really a blocker for OCP but OCS.

if QE needs a build that they can test with, we have tools for producing builds for them, though that would include this PR on top of 4.9. (or they can use a 4.10 build?)

Sure, would like to learn more of those. It might be helpful for at least conveying the possible solns. Thanks!

[bparees]

Sure, would like to learn more of those. It might be helpful for at least conveying the possible solns. Thanks!

we have a bot named cluster-bot on coreos.slack.com that allows you to build a release payload from a PR. you can then install a cluster from that payload:

build pullrequest - Create a new release image from one or more pull requests. The successful build location will be sent to you when it completes and then preserved for 12 hours.  Example: build openshift/operator-framework-olm#68,operator-framework/operator-marketplace#396

[openshift-ci]

@openshift-cherrypick-robot: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged:

• openshift/console#10069

Bugzilla bug 2004241 has been moved to the MODIFIED state.

In response to this:

[release-4.9] Bug 2004241: Storage class name not passed in CR

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.