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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Bug 1840383: Topologgy fix for service binding requests with no backingServiceSelector #5576

Merged
merged 1 commit into from May 27, 2020
Merged

Bug 1840383: Topologgy fix for service binding requests with no backingServiceSelector #5576

merged 1 commit into from May 27, 2020

Conversation

jeff-phillips-18
Copy link
Member

Fixes:
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/ODC-3846

Analysis / Root cause:
backingServiceSelector field was expected to never be null.

Solution Description:
Check that the backingServiceSelector field is non-null before attempting to create the connector.

/kind bug

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug. bugzilla/severity-unspecified Referenced Bugzilla bug's severity is unspecified for the PR. labels May 26, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@jeff-phillips-18: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1840383, which is invalid:

  • expected the bug to target the "4.5.0" release, but it targets "---" 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:

Bug 1840383: Topologgy fix for service binding requests with no backingServiceSelector

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-robot openshift-ci-robot added the bugzilla/invalid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is invalid for the branch this PR is targeting. label May 26, 2020
@jeff-phillips-18
Copy link
Member Author

/bugzilla refresh

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added bugzilla/severity-medium Referenced Bugzilla bug's severity is medium for the branch this PR is targeting. bugzilla/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. and removed bugzilla/severity-unspecified Referenced Bugzilla bug's severity is unspecified for the PR. labels May 26, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@jeff-phillips-18: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1840383, 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
  • bug is open, matching expected state (open)
  • bug target release (4.5.0) matches configured target release for branch (4.5.0)
  • bug is in the state ASSIGNED, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, ON_DEV, POST, POST)

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.

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the bugzilla/invalid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is invalid for the branch this PR is targeting. label May 26, 2020
@christianvogt
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

@christianvogt
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm
/approve

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. labels May 26, 2020
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

12 similar comments
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

13 similar comments
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@invincibleJai
Copy link
Member

/hold

@jeff-phillips-18 frontend ci job is failing

@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 27, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label May 27, 2020
@jeff-phillips-18
Copy link
Member Author

/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 27, 2020
rohitkrai03
rohitkrai03 approved these changes May 27, 2020
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@rohitkrai03 rohitkrai03 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-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: christianvogt, jeff-phillips-18, rohitkrai03

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

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label May 27, 2020
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit 41a3669 into openshift:master May 27, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@jeff-phillips-18: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged: openshift/console#5576. Bugzilla bug 1840383 has been moved to the MODIFIED state.

In response to this:

Bug 1840383: Topologgy fix for service binding requests with no backingServiceSelector

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.

@spadgett spadgett added this to the v4.5 milestone May 28, 2020
@jeff-phillips-18
Copy link
Member Author

/cherry-pick release-4.4

@openshift-cherrypick-robot
Copy link

@jeff-phillips-18: #5576 failed to apply on top of branch "release-4.4":

error: Failed to merge in the changes.
Using index info to reconstruct a base tree...
A	frontend/packages/dev-console/src/components/topology/data-transforms/transform-utils.ts
Falling back to patching base and 3-way merge...
CONFLICT (modify/delete): frontend/packages/dev-console/src/components/topology/data-transforms/transform-utils.ts deleted in HEAD and modified in Bug 1840383: Topologgy fix for service binding requests with no backingServiceSelector. Version Bug 1840383: Topologgy fix for service binding requests with no backingServiceSelector of frontend/packages/dev-console/src/components/topology/data-transforms/transform-utils.ts left in tree.
Patch failed at 0001 Bug 1840383: Topologgy fix for service binding requests with no backingServiceSelector

In response to this:

/cherry-pick release-4.4

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
Reviewers

@rohitkrai03 rohitkrai03 rohitkrai03 approved these changes

@benjaminapetersen benjaminapetersen Awaiting requested review from benjaminapetersen

@invincibleJai invincibleJai Awaiting requested review from invincibleJai

Assignees

@rohitkrai03 rohitkrai03

@christianvogt christianvogt

Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. bugzilla/severity-medium Referenced Bugzilla bug's severity is medium for the branch this PR is targeting. bugzilla/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. component/dev-console Related to dev-console kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
v4.5
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
9 participants
@jeff-phillips-18 @openshift-ci-robot @christianvogt @openshift-bot @invincibleJai @openshift-cherrypick-robot @rohitkrai03 @spadgett @openshift-merge-robot