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

test/e2e/manifest: hardcode StorageClass #103

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jun 16, 2021
Merged

Conversation

EmilienM
Copy link
Member

@EmilienM EmilienM commented Jun 15, 2021

The Storage Class is generated by the Manila CSI Operator, based on available
share types that have been created in Manila. For CI purpose, we assume
that a "default" share type exists and will be used for the StorageClass.
If you run this manifest against an OpenStack cloud where there is no "default" share type,
you'll need to change the value.

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot requested review from adduarte and mandre June 15, 2021 21:41
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Jun 15, 2021
@EmilienM EmilienM marked this pull request as draft June 16, 2021 02:29
@openshift-ci 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 Jun 16, 2021
EmilienM added a commit to shiftstack/dev-install that referenced this pull request Jun 16, 2021
To make it easier to discover, let's rename the type that will be used
for Manila CSI testing, to be `default`

Technically it changes nothing but it'll make it so the Manila CSI
operator will create a storage class with the name
`csi-manila-default`; which is more generic than
`csi-manila-cephfsnfstype`.

More context: openshift/csi-driver-manila-operator#103
@jsafrane
Copy link
Contributor

Looks good enough to me for our CI, where I expect manila share types to be static.

The Storage Class is generated by the Manila CSI Operator, based on available
share types that have been created in Manila. For CI purpose, we assume
that a "default" share type exists and will be used for the StorageClass.
If you run this manifest against an OpenStack cloud where there is no "default" share type,
you'll need to change the value.
@EmilienM EmilienM marked this pull request as ready for review June 16, 2021 12:45
@openshift-ci 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 Jun 16, 2021
Copy link
Contributor

@Fedosin Fedosin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/approve
/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jun 16, 2021
@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Jun 16, 2021

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: EmilienM, Fedosin

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-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit e8b2c2a into master Jun 16, 2021
@EmilienM EmilienM deleted the makeitwork branch June 16, 2021 15:32
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

4 participants