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

cherry-pick to 3.6 gluster block #6967

Conversation

mjudeikis
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@mjudeikis
Copy link
Contributor Author

/hold

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. labels Feb 1, 2018
@mjudeikis mjudeikis force-pushed the release-3.6-gluster-block-cherry branch from 4cc4633 to 9bdc1e2 Compare February 1, 2018 12:35
@mjudeikis
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jarrpa this one still kicking... testing now...

@jarrpa jarrpa self-requested a review February 1, 2018 17:42
@jarrpa jarrpa self-assigned this Feb 1, 2018
@mjudeikis
Copy link
Contributor Author

looks like same dynamic inventory case here:

    glusterfs_nodes: "{{ groups.glusterfs_registry | default(groups.glusterfs) }}"

to

    glusterfs_nodes: "{{ groups.glusterfs_registry if groups.glusterfs_registry | lenght > 0 else groups.glusterfs }}"

Because of this endpoints templates gets evaluates wrong... testing the fix before committing... But it might be fixed again for all branches...

@jarrpa
Copy link
Contributor

jarrpa commented Feb 1, 2018

We don't want to hold up these PRs for this dynamic inventory stuff, and in particular I don't want it on QE's radar to test for it. If you can, push through without it and we'll backport the group fixes separately.

@mjudeikis mjudeikis force-pushed the release-3.6-gluster-block-cherry branch from 9bdc1e2 to 4351572 Compare February 1, 2018 19:10
@mjudeikis
Copy link
Contributor Author

mjudeikis commented Feb 1, 2018

this one does not hold... But it fails due firewall now... I move forward overwriting those using debug mode, but now storage failing to provision.

I suspect slightly different firewall management comparing to 3.7+ branch... Will test it again first thing in the morning...

@jarrpa
Copy link
Contributor

jarrpa commented Feb 2, 2018

@mjudeikis Always run tox on your end.

@mjudeikis mjudeikis force-pushed the release-3.6-gluster-block-cherry branch from be0c8d8 to a866379 Compare February 2, 2018 13:45
@mjudeikis
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jarrpa for this we were firewall... so Copied it from 3.7+ but because plays are little bit different, added it just before Pods are created. Other option would be included before config... any ideas?

@mjudeikis
Copy link
Contributor Author

/hold cancel

@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 Feb 2, 2018
@jarrpa
Copy link
Contributor

jarrpa commented Feb 2, 2018

@mjudeikis Put the firewall include before the node labeling task.

@mjudeikis mjudeikis force-pushed the release-3.6-gluster-block-cherry branch from a866379 to 434605b Compare February 2, 2018 15:55
@mjudeikis
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jarrpa did it but would like to know your thinking behind this. I was thinking to do this just before deployment of the pods as its one pre-req needed for nodes. So if anything fails before deployment of pods, we would not leave residual firewalls rules open.

@jarrpa
Copy link
Contributor

jarrpa commented Feb 2, 2018

In 3.7+ all the firewall modifications get done before the main role tasks even run, so there's precedent for this. I just like having it at early as reasonably possible, and I figured just after any wipe operations was good enough.

Copy link
Contributor

@jarrpa jarrpa left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Feb 2, 2018
@jarrpa
Copy link
Contributor

jarrpa commented Feb 2, 2018

/test crio

@mjudeikis
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

@openshift-merge-robot
Copy link
Contributor

/test all [submit-queue is verifying that this PR is safe to merge]

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

openshift-ci-robot commented Feb 2, 2018

@mjudeikis: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun them all:

Test name Commit Details Rerun command
ci/openshift-jenkins/extended_conformance_install_crio 434605b link /test crio

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR.

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-merge-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Automatic merge from submit-queue.

@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit aefae23 into openshift:release-3.6 Feb 2, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants