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

OADP-935: Incorrect Backup apiVersion in "Using Data Mover for CSI snapshots" #53198

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 5, 2022

Conversation

RichardHoch
Copy link
Contributor

@RichardHoch RichardHoch commented Nov 28, 2022

OADP 1.0.6; OCP 4.9+

Bug reported by QE; PR approived by QE.

Resolves https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OADP-935 by changing the Backup apiVersion in the Back GR codeblock in "Using Data Mover for CSI snapshots."

Preview: See step 3a in https://53198--docspreview.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/backup_and_restore/application_backup_and_restore/backing_up_and_restoring/backing-up-applications.html#oadp-using-data-mover-for-csi-snapshots_backing-up-applications

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. label Nov 28, 2022
@ocpdocs-previewbot
Copy link

Copy link

@PrasadJoshi12 PrasadJoshi12 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
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Nov 28, 2022

@PrasadJoshi12: changing LGTM is restricted to collaborators

In response to this:

/lgtm

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.

@RichardHoch
Copy link
Contributor Author

/label OADP
/label peer-review-needed

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added OADP Label for all OADP PRs peer-review-needed Signifies that the peer review team needs to review this PR labels Nov 28, 2022
@Wiharris
Copy link
Contributor

/label peer-review-in-progress

Copy link
Contributor

@Wiharris Wiharris left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/LGTM

@Wiharris
Copy link
Contributor

/remove-label peer-review-in-progress
/remove-label peer-review-needed
/label peer-review-done

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added peer-review-in-progress Signifies that the peer review team is reviewing this PR peer-review-done Signifies that the peer review team has reviewed this PR and removed peer-review-in-progress Signifies that the peer review team is reviewing this PR peer-review-needed Signifies that the peer review team needs to review this PR labels Nov 28, 2022
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Nov 28, 2022
@RichardHoch
Copy link
Contributor Author

/oadp
/merge-review-needed [I am double-checking on when to merge when this is good to go]

@RichardHoch
Copy link
Contributor Author

@weshayutin Please merge on Monday. Tuesday is OK, too.

@weshayutin
Copy link

@RichardHoch I do not have merge rights here.

@kalexand-rh kalexand-rh added the merge-review-needed Signifies that the merge review team needs to review this PR label Dec 5, 2022
@mjpytlak mjpytlak added merge-review-in-progress Signifies that the merge review team is reviewing this PR and removed merge-review-needed Signifies that the merge review team needs to review this PR labels Dec 5, 2022
@mjpytlak
Copy link
Contributor

mjpytlak commented Dec 5, 2022

@RichardHoch Handling this now. Just a reminder. We are no longer updating documentation for 4.6 and 4.7. Those versions are EOL. I will merge this into 4.8+. I updated the first comment in the PR to reflect that.

@mjpytlak mjpytlak merged commit ff68c0c into openshift:main Dec 5, 2022
@mjpytlak
Copy link
Contributor

mjpytlak commented Dec 5, 2022

/cherrypick enterprise-4.12

@mjpytlak
Copy link
Contributor

mjpytlak commented Dec 5, 2022

/cherrypick enterprise-4.11

@mjpytlak
Copy link
Contributor

mjpytlak commented Dec 5, 2022

/cherrypick enterprise-4.10

@mjpytlak
Copy link
Contributor

mjpytlak commented Dec 5, 2022

/cherrypick enterprise-4.9

@mjpytlak
Copy link
Contributor

mjpytlak commented Dec 5, 2022

/cherrypick enterprise-4.8

@openshift-cherrypick-robot

@mjpytlak: new pull request created: #53467

In response to this:

/cherrypick enterprise-4.12

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-cherrypick-robot

@mjpytlak: new pull request created: #53468

In response to this:

/cherrypick enterprise-4.11

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-cherrypick-robot

@mjpytlak: new pull request created: #53469

In response to this:

/cherrypick enterprise-4.10

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-cherrypick-robot

@mjpytlak: new pull request created: #53470

In response to this:

/cherrypick enterprise-4.9

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-cherrypick-robot

@mjpytlak: #53198 failed to apply on top of branch "enterprise-4.8":

Applying: OADP-935: Incorrect Backup apiVersion in Using Data Mover for CSI snapshots
Using index info to reconstruct a base tree...
A	modules/oadp-using-data-mover-for-csi-snapshots.adoc
Falling back to patching base and 3-way merge...
CONFLICT (modify/delete): modules/oadp-using-data-mover-for-csi-snapshots.adoc deleted in HEAD and modified in OADP-935: Incorrect Backup apiVersion in Using Data Mover for CSI snapshots. Version OADP-935: Incorrect Backup apiVersion in Using Data Mover for CSI snapshots of modules/oadp-using-data-mover-for-csi-snapshots.adoc left in tree.
error: Failed to merge in the changes.
hint: Use 'git am --show-current-patch=diff' to see the failed patch
Patch failed at 0001 OADP-935: Incorrect Backup apiVersion in Using Data Mover for CSI snapshots
When you have resolved this problem, run "git am --continue".
If you prefer to skip this patch, run "git am --skip" instead.
To restore the original branch and stop patching, run "git am --abort".

In response to this:

/cherrypick enterprise-4.8

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.

@mjpytlak
Copy link
Contributor

mjpytlak commented Dec 5, 2022

@RichardHoch I believe the CP back to 4.8 failed because the module you updated does not exist in 4.8. I believe this is what CONFLICT (modify/delete): modules/oadp-using-data-mover-for-csi-snapshots.adoc deleted in HEAD and modified in [OADP-935](https://issues.redhat.com//browse/OADP-935): Incorrect Backup apiVersion in Using Data Mover for CSI snapshots. Version [OADP-935](https://issues.redhat.com//browse/OADP-935): Incorrect Backup apiVersion in Using Data Mover for CSI snapshots of modules/oadp-using-data-mover-for-csi-snapshots.adoc left in tree. error: Failed to merge in the changes. means.

Please verify that the module does exist in 4.8.

@RichardHoch
Copy link
Contributor Author

@mjpytlak Thanks! Double-checking with the SME that we do want this for 4.8 (4.9+ may be enough). If so, will check on the module. If needed, I'll CP and submit the PR. If not, I'll let you know.

@mjpytlak
Copy link
Contributor

mjpytlak commented Dec 5, 2022

Confirmed that this CP to 4.8 failed because when the original author of the module added to the doc doc, they added it to 4.9+ only. [1]

I have spoken to @RichardHoch and he will double check with the SME and the original author to determine if this content should live in 4.8, as well. If so, Richard will open a separate PR to track this work.

I have removed the enterprise-4.8 label and updated the first comment of the PR to indicate that this update applies to 4.9+ only.

[1] #48619

@RichardHoch
Copy link
Contributor Author

@mjpytlak Thanks for the great advice and support!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
branch/enterprise-4.9 branch/enterprise-4.10 branch/enterprise-4.11 branch/enterprise-4.12 lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. merge-review-in-progress Signifies that the merge review team is reviewing this PR OADP Label for all OADP PRs peer-review-done Signifies that the peer review team has reviewed this PR size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

8 participants