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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

avoid builds on non-linux nodes #22885

Merged
merged 1 commit into from May 23, 2019
Merged

avoid builds on non-linux nodes #22885

merged 1 commit into from May 23, 2019

Conversation

gabemontero
Copy link
Contributor

@gabemontero gabemontero commented May 21, 2019 •
edited

@gabemontero gabemontero added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label May 21, 2019
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. labels May 21, 2019
@gabemontero
Copy link
Contributor Author

unit test failure k8s flake (rebase related knee jerk assumption)

the integration test failures are related to the changes I made...just pushed update

adambkaplan
adambkaplan reviewed May 22, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@adambkaplan adambkaplan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@gabemontero not sure why you have to reference the staging code - shouldn't the vendored API lib include the new label?

pkg/build/controller/build/defaults/defaults.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/build/controller/build/defaults/defaults_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@gabemontero
Copy link
Contributor Author

/assign @adambkaplan
grabbing label from corev1
@openshift/sig-developer-experience fyi
/assign @bparees
(assigning for test/integration @bparees since @adambkaplan is not listed that owners file )

@soltysh - I didn't do a super detailed analysis, but some simple grepping saw more references to beta.kubernetes.io/os in the vendored k8s code post 1.14 rebase than I was expecting at first blush. Do you know if in fact there are still some benign references to the old label, and I should ignore what the grep uncovered? Or is there any value in adding both beta.kubernetes.io/os and kubernetes.io/os to the build pod node selector map?

@bparees
Copy link
Contributor

bparees commented May 22, 2019

/approve

@gabemontero
Copy link
Contributor Author

upgrade failure was mco related

shift-machine-config-operator replicaset/etcd-quorum-guard-8544d7868c Deleted pod: etcd-quorum-guard-8544d7868c-cw7ln
May 22 17:53:46.325 I ns/openshift-machine-config-operator deployment/etcd-quorum-guard Scaled up replica set etcd-quorum-guard-66c7d7bfcf to 3
May 22 17:53:46.408 I ns/openshift-machine-config-operator pod/etcd-quorum-guard-66c7d7bfcf-qlwgg node/ created
May 22 17:53:46.419 I ns/openshift-machine-config-operator replicaset/etcd-quorum-guard-66c7d7bfcf Created pod: etcd-quorum-guard-66c7d7bfcf-qlwgg
May 22 17:53:46.423 W ns/openshift-machine-config-operator pod/etcd-quorum-guard-66c7d7bfcf-qlwgg 0/6 nodes are available: 3 node(s) didn't match node selector, 3 node(s) didn't match pod affinity/anti-affinity, 3 node(s) didn't satisfy existing pods anti-affinity rules.
May 22 17:53:46.447 W ns/openshift-machine-config-operator pod/etcd-quorum-guard-66c7d7bfcf-qlwgg 0/6 nodes are available: 3 node(s) didn't match node selector, 3 node(s) didn't match pod affinity/anti-affinity, 3 node(s) didn't satisfy existing pods anti-affinity rules. (2 times)
May 22 17:53:55.846 W ns/openshift-machine-config-operator pod/etcd-quorum-guard-66c7d7bfcf-qlwgg 0/6 nodes are available: 3 node(s) didn't match node selector, 3 node(s) didn't match pod affinity/anti-affinity, 3 node(s) didn't satisfy existing pods anti-affinity rules. (3 times)
May 22 17:53:58.193 W ns/openshift-machine-config-operator pod/etcd-quorum-guard-66c7d7bfcf-qlwgg 0/6 nodes are available: 3 node(s) didn't match node selector, 3 node(s) didn't match pod affinity/anti-affinity, 3 node(s) didn't satisfy existing pods anti-affinity rules. (4 times)
May 22 17:53:59.081 I test="[Disruptive] Cluster upgrade should maintain a functioning cluster [Feature:ClusterUpgrade] [Suite:openshift] [Serial]" failed

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label May 22, 2019
@gabemontero
Copy link
Contributor Author

/test e2e-aws-upgrade

@gabemontero
Copy link
Contributor Author

gabemontero commented May 23, 2019 •
edited

we have passing tests @adambkaplan :-) ... bump / any more comments ?

@soltysh is marked away on slack this AM but we could always create a follow up PR for my question to him at #22885 (comment) if this merges before he responds

adambkaplan
adambkaplan approved these changes May 23, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@adambkaplan adambkaplan 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 May 23, 2019
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: adambkaplan, bparees, gabemontero

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

@gabemontero
Copy link
Contributor Author

/skip pr

@gabemontero
Copy link
Contributor Author

/skip travis-ci/pr

@gabemontero
Copy link
Contributor Author

/skip continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

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

@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit 6df94be into openshift:master May 23, 2019
@gabemontero gabemontero deleted the bld-linux-nodes-only branch May 23, 2019 19:41
@soltysh
Copy link
Member

soltysh commented May 29, 2019

@soltysh - I didn't do a super detailed analysis, but some simple grepping saw more references to beta.kubernetes.io/os in the vendored k8s code post 1.14 rebase than I was expecting at first blush. Do you know if in fact there are still some benign references to the old label, and I should ignore what the grep uncovered? Or is there any value in adding both beta.kubernetes.io/os and kubernetes.io/os to the build pod node selector map?

Looking at https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/master/CHANGELOG-1.14.md#deprecations it looks like we should be ok with just the new label, unless you plan to support that in 4.1 in which case both.

@soltysh
Copy link
Member

soltysh commented May 29, 2019

@gabemontero ^

@gabemontero
Copy link
Contributor Author

thanks for the confirmation @soltysh

And fyi this will not be backported to 4.1

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@adambkaplan adambkaplan adambkaplan approved these changes

@csrwng csrwng Awaiting requested review from csrwng

@knobunc knobunc Awaiting requested review from knobunc

Assignees

@adambkaplan adambkaplan

@bparees bparees

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. sig/developer-experience size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
7 participants
@gabemontero @bparees @openshift-ci-robot @openshift-bot @soltysh @adambkaplan @openshift-merge-robot