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
verify upgrade targets separately for each group (masters, nodes, etcd) #4321
verify upgrade targets separately for each group (masters, nodes, etcd) #4321
Conversation
aos-ci-test |
5374537
to
b54a329
Compare
aos-ci-test |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm a little worried about some of the commands in relation to atomic hosts.
shell: "rpm -q --queryformat '---\ncurr_version: %{VERSION}\navail_version: \n' docker" | ||
register: g_atomic_docker_version_result | ||
when: openshift.common.is_atomic | bool | ||
- name: Determine available Docker |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Reminder: This will fail on container-engine instances in the future. However, the same method used to gain docker version on atomic will work.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have not modified the file, just removed the play part and kept all tasks. I can polish the task files if needed. However, we should fix this as a part of another PR, e.g. "towards atomic compatibility".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Anyway, I would rather replace the shell with repoquery module and extend the module to be runnable on atomic as well.
|
||
- name: Verify containers are available for upgrade | ||
- when: not openshift.common.is_containerized | bool |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not sure, but I don't think this would work on atomic either.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My only ask on this is that a card be put in the backlog to make our hosts Atomic Host friendly and that it get prioritized highly.
[merge][severity: blocker] |
Evaluated for openshift ansible merge up to b54a329 |
continuous-integration/openshift-jenkins/merge SUCCESS (https://ci.openshift.redhat.com/jenkins/job/merge_pull_request_openshift_ansible/498/) (Base Commit: 47a269e) (Extended Tests: blocker) |
So we don't check docker and rpm version on nodes if we upgrade the control plane only.