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

Bug 1788419: bump kube to 1.17, use gomod #147

Merged
merged 7 commits into from Jan 10, 2020

Conversation

stlaz
Copy link
Member

@stlaz stlaz commented Jan 9, 2020

Latest kube-deps bump was in November 2017 and it most probably was taken from master...

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files. approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. labels Jan 9, 2020
@stlaz
Copy link
Member Author

stlaz commented Jan 9, 2020

/test e2e-aws
listing hosted zones: Throttling: Rate exceeded\n\tstatus code: 400 <-- looks like we're hitting AWS limits

@stlaz stlaz changed the title bump kube to 1.17, use gomod Bug 1788419: bump kube to 1.17, use gomod Jan 9, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@stlaz: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1788419, 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.

In response to this:

Bug 1788419: bump kube to 1.17, use gomod

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/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. label Jan 9, 2020
@deads2k
Copy link

deads2k commented Jan 9, 2020

I'm fine with the change, it's good in and of itself. It's not obvious to me why you think this fixes your problem though.

/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 9, 2020
@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

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

3 similar comments
@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

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

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

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

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

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

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 9, 2020
@LorbusChris
Copy link
Member

@stlaz you may want to update the Go version used by Travis to 1.13 as well (https://github.com/openshift/oauth-proxy/blob/master/.travis.yml#L4)

@stlaz
Copy link
Member Author

stlaz commented Jan 9, 2020

@LorbusChris thanks for the suggestion.

I am not sure openshift 3.9, which is being built there, could take it. My plan is to move away from Travis anyway, and use our common testing machinery which sets its own real cluster up soon, so I'd stick with the go version we've got there for now.

@LorbusChris
Copy link
Member

Oh I missed that it's still on 3.9, nevermind then :)

@stlaz
Copy link
Member Author

stlaz commented Jan 9, 2020

/retest

@vareti
Copy link

vareti commented Jan 9, 2020

/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 9, 2020
@stlaz
Copy link
Member Author

stlaz commented Jan 9, 2020

/hold
I just noticed oauth-proxy is in error backoff for machine-config-demons

@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 Jan 9, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 10, 2020
@stlaz
Copy link
Member Author

stlaz commented Jan 10, 2020

fixed config evaluation when no client CA is specified for delegated auth and replaced nil context for Authorize() call with context.Background()

@stlaz
Copy link
Member Author

stlaz commented Jan 10, 2020

/retest
getting rate exceeded again

@stlaz
Copy link
Member Author

stlaz commented Jan 10, 2020

/hold cancel
fixed

@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 Jan 10, 2020
@deads2k
Copy link

deads2k commented Jan 10, 2020

/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 10, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: deads2k, stlaz, vareti

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 434b882 into openshift:master Jan 10, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@stlaz: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged. Bugzilla bug 1788419 has been moved to the MODIFIED state.

In response to this:

Bug 1788419: bump kube to 1.17, use gomod

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
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. bugzilla/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

7 participants