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

remove MCO manifests #5383

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Nov 24, 2021

Conversation

yuvalk
Copy link
Contributor

@yuvalk yuvalk commented Nov 14, 2021

this is no longer needed

@sinnykumari
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM
/retest

@yuvalk
Copy link
Contributor Author

yuvalk commented Nov 15, 2021

/assign @staebler
will appreciate your help with this one

@staebler
Copy link
Contributor

@yuvalk Can you add some color for why this is no longer needed?

@yuvalk
Copy link
Contributor Author

yuvalk commented Nov 15, 2021

@staebler see bz https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1978581
and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1805488

tl;dr:
These appear to be either copy and paste based on bad documentation, or previously required before OCP 4.7 due to significant boot delays.
With some basic testing, it appears that these can be removed.

let me know if you want me to include this info in the commit msg itself

Copy link
Contributor

@jstuever jstuever left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm
The code looks good, I'll leave it to someone else to decide if it's a good idea (approve).

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

/unassign

@yuvalk
Copy link
Contributor Author

yuvalk commented Nov 23, 2021

/retest

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot removed the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Nov 23, 2021
@yuvalk yuvalk force-pushed the mco-remove-runlevl branch 2 times, most recently from 1f7d9b1 to b3d5497 Compare November 23, 2021 21:44
@staebler
Copy link
Contributor

staebler commented Nov 24, 2021

I would like to take a step back from the changes made in this PR and evaluate whether the installer should even be creating these manifests. I feel like this is leftover from the tectonic days. The machine-config-operator should be rendering any manifests that it needs during bootstrapping or including them as part of the release payload.

The machine-config-operator is already including the manifest for the openshift-machine-config-operator namespace as part of the release payload. Is there some reason why the namespace needs to exist earlier? Even so, rendering it during bootstrap would accomplish the same thing and push the ownership of the manifest to the MCO, where it belongs.

As an aside, the MCO uses a runlevel of 1 for the openshift-machine-config-operator namespace manifest that is included in the release payload.
https://github.com/openshift/machine-config-operator/blob/6d2b493e0f4ed4dcbe32a4666bd0fa8facc6e5b1/install/0000_80_machine-config-operator_00_namespace.yaml#L13

@yuvalk
Copy link
Contributor Author

yuvalk commented Nov 24, 2021

I would like to take a step back from the changes made in this PR and evaluate whether the installer should even be creating these manifests. I feel like this is leftover from the tectonic days. The machine-config-operator should be rendering any manifests that it needs during bootstrapping or including them as part of the release payload.

The machine-config-operator is already including the manifest for the openshift-machine-config-operator namespace as part of the release payload. Is there some reason why the namespace needs to exist earlier? Even so, rendering it during bootstrap would accomplish the same thing and push the ownership of the manifest to the MCO, where it belongs.

As an aside, the MCO uses a runlevel of 1 for the openshift-machine-config-operator namespace manifest that is included in the release payload. https://github.com/openshift/machine-config-operator/blob/6d2b493e0f4ed4dcbe32a4666bd0fa8facc6e5b1/install/0000_80_machine-config-operator_00_namespace.yaml#L13

We are addressing that in openshift/machine-config-operator#2655
and the whole reason for this PR, is to be on par with that from installer side too.

Let's try and remove the file altogether (from installer)

@yuvalk yuvalk force-pushed the mco-remove-runlevl branch 4 times, most recently from b3d4f4e to 2e5af82 Compare November 24, 2021 10:21
@yuvalk
Copy link
Contributor Author

yuvalk commented Nov 24, 2021

/test e2e-aws-upgrade
build cluster had issues

@staebler
Copy link
Contributor

Looks like removing the manifest entirely works just fine. The changes look good to me. Clean up the commit message and the PR title, and I'll give it a lgtm.

These are leftovers from the tectonic era.
With current implementation it should all be rendered by
machine-config-operator itself
@yuvalk yuvalk changed the title remove run-level:1 from MCO remove MCO manifests Nov 24, 2021
@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Nov 24, 2021

@yuvalk: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name Commit Details Required Rerun command
ci/prow/e2e-aws-workers-rhel8 dd1e198 link false /test e2e-aws-workers-rhel8
ci/prow/e2e-crc dd1e198 link false /test e2e-crc
ci/prow/e2e-aws-single-node dd1e198 link false /test e2e-aws-single-node
ci/prow/e2e-aws-workers-rhel7 dd1e198 link false /test e2e-aws-workers-rhel7

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.

Copy link
Contributor

@staebler staebler left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm
/approve

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Nov 24, 2021
@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Nov 24, 2021

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: staebler

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 openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Nov 24, 2021
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit c1c9b61 into openshift:master Nov 24, 2021
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

5 participants