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 2078016: drop multipathd socket workaround #786

Conversation

miabbott
Copy link
Member

f-c-c submodule bump to drop the workaround:

$ (cd fedora-coreos-config && git shortlog 9700b247b8b2d7424beea27df1e7163e619d7d64..67566822f1f957e6484cc3e3960101717dc3b14b)
Micah Abbott (1):
      remove multipathd socket workaround

f-c-c submodule bump to drop the workaround:

```
$ (cd fedora-coreos-config && git shortlog 9700b247b8b2d7424beea27df1e7163e619d7d64..67566822f1f957e6484cc3e3960101717dc3b14b)
Micah Abbott (1):
      remove multipathd socket workaround

```
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added bugzilla/severity-low Referenced Bugzilla bug's severity is low for the branch this PR is targeting. bugzilla/invalid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is invalid for the branch this PR is targeting. labels Apr 22, 2022
@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Apr 22, 2022

@miabbott: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 2078016, which is invalid:

  • expected dependent Bugzilla bug 2078013 to be in one of the following states: VERIFIED, RELEASE_PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA), CLOSED (CURRENTRELEASE), but it is ASSIGNED instead

Comment /bugzilla refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Bugzilla bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

In response to this:

Bug 2078016: drop multipathd socket workaround

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 openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Apr 22, 2022
@dustymabe
Copy link
Member

/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Apr 22, 2022
@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Apr 22, 2022

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: dustymabe, miabbott

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-bot
Copy link

/retest-required

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

@miabbott
Copy link
Member Author

/retest

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/bugzilla refresh

Recalculating validity in case the underlying Bugzilla bug has changed.

@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Apr 23, 2022

@openshift-bot: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 2078016, which is invalid:

  • expected dependent Bugzilla bug 2078013 to be in one of the following states: VERIFIED, RELEASE_PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA), CLOSED (CURRENTRELEASE), but it is ASSIGNED instead

Comment /bugzilla refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Bugzilla bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

In response to this:

/bugzilla refresh

Recalculating validity in case the underlying Bugzilla bug has changed.

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-bot
Copy link

/retest-required

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

8 similar comments
@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest-required

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

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest-required

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

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest-required

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

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest-required

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

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest-required

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

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest-required

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

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest-required

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

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest-required

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

@miabbott
Copy link
Member Author

miabbott commented Apr 23, 2022

--- FAIL: rhcos.upgrade.from-ocp-rhcos (2.57s)
        upgrade.go:214: exit status 1

I spent some time debugging this on build02 by spinning up a cosa pod and running this test with a bunch of fmt.Println() statements scattered through the code. (The test fails with no log output otherwise)

Something may have changed in the cluster, as the test appeared to be failing during the setup of the oc client. I suspected it was the sudo call to unpack the tarball to /usr/bin, so I hacked up the code to explode the tarball into a temp dir and run the oc binary from there. Once the oc binary was usable, the test seemed to proceed normally.

I suspect that the pod I was using is not identical to the pod being created by Prow, so the sudo error might be a red herring. Though, it looks like the history of the job on PRs to master show that rhcos.upgrade.from-ocp-rhcos is getting skipped, so perhaps not...hard to say conclusively without a good signal.

Regardless, I was able to successfully get the upgrade test to run and I'm going to override the test result for now.

/override ci/prow/built-test-qemu

@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Apr 23, 2022

@miabbott: /override requires a failed status context or a job name to operate on.
The following unknown contexts were given:

  • ci/prow/built-test-qemu

Only the following contexts were expected:

  • ci/prow/build-test-qemu
  • ci/prow/images
  • pull-ci-openshift-os-c9s-build-test-qemu
  • pull-ci-openshift-os-c9s-images
  • tide

In response to this:

--- FAIL: rhcos.upgrade.from-ocp-rhcos (2.57s)
       upgrade.go:214: exit status 1

I spent some time debugging this on build02 by spinning up a cosa pod and running this test with a bunch of fmt.Println() statements scattered through the code. (The test fails with no log output otherwise)

Something may have changed in the cluster, as the test appeared to be failing during the setup of the oc client. I suspected it was the sudo call to unpack the tarball to /usr/bin, so I hacked up the code to explode the tarball into a temp dir and run the oc binary from there. Once the oc binary was usable, the test seemed to proceed normally.

I suspect that the pod I was using is not identical to the pod being created by Prow, so the sudo error might be a red herring. Though, it looks like the history of the job on PRs to master show that rhcos.upgrade.from-ocp-rhcos is getting skipped, so perhaps not.

Regardless, I was able to successfully get the upgrade test to run and I'm going to override the test result for now.

/override ci/prow/built-test-qemu

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.

@miabbott
Copy link
Member Author

/override ci/prow/build-test-qemu

@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Apr 23, 2022

@miabbott: Overrode contexts on behalf of miabbott: ci/prow/build-test-qemu

In response to this:

/override ci/prow/build-test-qemu

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.

@miabbott
Copy link
Member Author

miabbott commented Apr 23, 2022

@mike-nguyen FYI on that upgrade test failure; since you wrote the original code for that test, you might be in position to do some additional digging

See #786 (comment)

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest-required

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

1 similar comment
@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest-required

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

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/bugzilla refresh

Recalculating validity in case the underlying Bugzilla bug has changed.

@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Apr 24, 2022

@openshift-bot: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 2078016, which is invalid:

  • expected dependent Bugzilla bug 2078013 to be in one of the following states: VERIFIED, RELEASE_PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA), CLOSED (CURRENTRELEASE), but it is ASSIGNED instead

Comment /bugzilla refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Bugzilla bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

In response to this:

/bugzilla refresh

Recalculating validity in case the underlying Bugzilla bug has changed.

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-bot
Copy link

/retest-required

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

7 similar comments
@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest-required

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

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest-required

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

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest-required

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

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest-required

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

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest-required

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

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest-required

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

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest-required

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

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/bugzilla refresh

Recalculating validity in case the underlying Bugzilla bug has changed.

@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Apr 25, 2022

@openshift-bot: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 2078016, which is invalid:

  • expected dependent Bugzilla bug 2078013 to be in one of the following states: VERIFIED, RELEASE_PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA), CLOSED (CURRENTRELEASE), but it is ASSIGNED instead

Comment /bugzilla refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Bugzilla bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

In response to this:

/bugzilla refresh

Recalculating validity in case the underlying Bugzilla bug has changed.

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-bot
Copy link

/retest-required

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

3 similar comments
@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest-required

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

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest-required

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

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest-required

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

@miabbott miabbott removed the bugzilla/invalid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is invalid for the branch this PR is targeting. label Apr 25, 2022
@miabbott
Copy link
Member Author

  • expected dependent Bugzilla bug 2078013 to be in one of the following states: VERIFIED, RELEASE_PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA), CLOSED (CURRENTRELEASE), but it is ASSIGNED instead

We are aware of the state of the parent BZ for 4.11 and it is agreed that we will remove the workaround in master via coreos/fedora-coreos-config#1689 once the 8.5.z update ships this week

@miabbott
Copy link
Member Author

/override ci/prow/build-test-qemu

@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Apr 25, 2022

@miabbott: Overrode contexts on behalf of miabbott: ci/prow/build-test-qemu

In response to this:

/override ci/prow/build-test-qemu

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
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Apr 25, 2022

@miabbott: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name Commit Details Required Rerun command
ci/prow/build-test-qemu 2291454 link true /test build-test-qemu

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

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 openshift-merge-robot merged commit b7fdd0c into openshift:release-4.10 Apr 25, 2022
@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Apr 25, 2022

@miabbott: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged:

Bugzilla bug 2078016 has been moved to the MODIFIED state.

In response to this:

Bug 2078016: drop multipathd socket workaround

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.

@mike-nguyen
Copy link
Member

@mike-nguyen FYI on that upgrade test failure; since you wrote the original code for that test, you might be in position to do some additional digging

See #786 (comment)

I'll have to test on build02 like you. I think your suspicion might be correct with sudo as coreos-assembler in the RHCOS pipeline runs privileged.

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/severity-low Referenced Bugzilla bug's severity is low for the branch this PR is targeting. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants