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

baremetal: make cluster provisioning IP optional #4429

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Dec 2, 2020

Conversation

stbenjam
Copy link
Member

@stbenjam stbenjam commented Nov 30, 2020

This makes the cluster provisioning IP optional when the provisioning
network is disabled. If no provisioning IP is provided, then we use
the host IP of the node we're running on.

This is dependent on the work in openshift/cluster-baremetal-operator#73
and openshift/cluster-baremetal-operator#76

This makes the cluster provisioning IP optional when the provisioning
network is disabled. If no provisioning IP is provided, then we use
the host IP of the node we're running on.
@hardys
Copy link
Contributor

hardys commented Dec 1, 2020

/label platform/baremetal

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the platform/baremetal IPI bare metal hosts platform label Dec 1, 2020
@hardys
Copy link
Contributor

hardys commented Dec 1, 2020

/approve

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: hardys

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 approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Dec 1, 2020
@dhellmann
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Dec 1, 2020
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

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

// If set, ensure clusterProvisioningIP is in one of the machine networks
if p.ClusterProvisioningIP != "" {
if err := validateIPinMachineCIDR(p.ClusterProvisioningIP, n); err != nil {
allErrs = append(allErrs, field.Invalid(fldPath.Child("clusterProvisioningIP"), p.ClusterProvisioningIP, fmt.Sprintf("provisioning network is disabled, %s", err.Error())))
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Understanding that this is existing code, this still seems like a good time to fix this.

Suggested change
allErrs = append(allErrs, field.Invalid(fldPath.Child("clusterProvisioningIP"), p.ClusterProvisioningIP, fmt.Sprintf("provisioning network is disabled, %s", err.Error())))
allErrs = append(allErrs, field.Invalid(fldPath.Child("provisioningHostIP"), p.ClusterProvisioningIP, fmt.Sprintf("provisioning network is disabled, %s", err.Error())))

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Or I suppose it will conflict with the changes made in #4053, and that other PR is a better place to make the field name consistent.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yea good point, I think when one lands the other will have a conflict so I'll adjust the one that doesn't merge.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

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

9 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-merge-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@stbenjam: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests:

Test name Commit Details Rerun command
ci/prow/e2e-aws-workers-rhel7 2d0f9e5 link /test e2e-aws-workers-rhel7
ci/prow/e2e-crc 2d0f9e5 link /test e2e-crc

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.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

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

1 similar comment
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

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

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. platform/baremetal IPI bare metal hosts platform
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

7 participants