✨ (Valid for Boxcutter Runtime Only) switched to label-based revision lookups — faster, safer, and no orphans left behind. #2315

camilamacedo86 · 2025-11-09T00:17:51Z

Revisions are now discovered using a label-based cache instead of walking explicit Spec.Previous chains.
This makes lookups faster, safer, and ensures no orphan revisions are left behind when a ClusterExtension is deleted.
Migration automatically sets ownerReferences for existing revisions.

What Changed

Before:

Revisions tracked previous ones via Spec.Previous
Migration didn’t set ownerReferences
Finding related revisions required walking the chain

Now:

Revisions are queried by label olm.operatorframework.io/owner
Filtered in-memory (skip current, archived, deleting)
Migration sets ownerReferences

Why It's Better

Faster: Uses cache, no API calls
Simpler: One label query instead of walking chains
Cleaner: Deleting a ClusterExtension auto-deletes its revisions
No orphans left behind

Where it matters ( With Boxcutter runtime only )

Upgrade: Migrated revisions get ownerReferences
Management: Faster revision lookups, less API load
Cleanup: Deleting a ClusterExtension removes all its revisions — no orphans left behind

netlify · 2025-11-09T00:17:56Z

✅ Deploy Preview for olmv1 ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	`ef2c006`
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/olmv1/deploys/6910e4f593e3aa00082689d5
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-2315--olmv1.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration.

Copilot

Pull Request Overview

This PR refactors how previous revisions are discovered during ClusterExtensionRevision reconciliation. Instead of relying on a static Spec.Previous field, the controller now dynamically queries for previous revisions using the owner label, enabling more flexible revision management.

Key changes:

Introduced ListPreviousRevisions() method to dynamically discover sibling revisions
Updated toBoxcutterRevision() to call ListPreviousRevisions() and return errors
Enhanced test coverage with comprehensive test cases for the new listing logic
Improved test names and added scenario comments for better readability

Reviewed Changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

File	Description
internal/operator-controller/controllers/clusterextensionrevision_controller.go	Added `ListPreviousRevisions()` method for dynamic revision discovery, refactored `toBoxcutterRevision()` signature to return errors, removed unused `unstructured` import
internal/operator-controller/controllers/clusterextensionrevision_controller_test.go	Added comprehensive tests for `ListPreviousRevisions()`, updated test names to be more descriptive, added scenario comments, updated `mockTrackingCache` to delegate Get/List to actual client, removed obsolete `Spec.Previous` test setup, added owner label to test revision helper

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

codecov · 2025-11-09T00:29:55Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 69.11765% with 21 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 74.11%. Comparing base (b3f85d5) to head (ef2c006).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...controllers/clusterextensionrevision_controller.go	61.53%	11 Missing and 4 partials ⚠️
internal/operator-controller/applier/boxcutter.go	78.57%	3 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2315      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   71.14%   74.11%   +2.96%     
==========================================
  Files          91       91              
  Lines        7046     7101      +55     
==========================================
+ Hits         5013     5263     +250     
+ Misses       1618     1417     -201     
- Partials      415      421       +6

Flag	Coverage Δ
e2e	`45.51% <0.00%> (-0.43%)`	⬇️
experimental-e2e	`47.98% <44.11%> (?)`
unit	`58.59% <67.64%> (+0.01%)`	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

openshift-ci · 2025-11-09T11:26:50Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign grokspawn, thetechnick for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

cmd/OWNERS
internal/operator-controller/OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

Copilot

Pull Request Overview

Copilot reviewed 5 out of 5 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

internal/operator-controller/applier/boxcutter_test.go

internal/operator-controller/applier/boxcutter.go

Copilot

Pull Request Overview

Copilot reviewed 5 out of 5 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

internal/operator-controller/controllers/clusterextensionrevision_controller.go

…it chains Instead of tracking revision history through Spec.Previous fields, we now find related revisions using labels and the controller-runtime cache. This is more efficient and works better with controller-runtime's caching layer. To support this change, the Helm-to-Boxcutter migration now sets ownerReferences on migrated revisions, ensuring they work identically to newly created revisions. Assisted-by: Cursor

camilamacedo86 · 2025-11-09T19:14:31Z

internal/operator-controller/applier/boxcutter.go

+	// Package name must be in labels for BoxcutterRevisionStatesGetter to find it
+	if pkg, ok := annotations[labels.PackageNameKey]; ok {
+		revisionLabels[labels.PackageNameKey] = pkg
+	}


Why:

Main already reads Package from rev.Labels["package-name"] in BoxcutterRevisionStatesGetter

But main doesn't set it during migration - Package field was always empty

This fixes the bug by copying package name from annotations to labels

camilamacedo86 · 2025-11-09T19:18:25Z

internal/operator-controller/controllers/clusterextensionrevision_controller.go

+		}
+		// Only archive revisions with lower revision numbers (actual previous revisions)
+		if r.Spec.Revision >= rev.Spec.Revision {
+			continue


We still populate Spec.Previous even though we now use labels for discovery because:

API Compatibility - It's a published field in the CRD and marked immutable. Removing it would be a breaking change.

Garbage Collection - setPreviousRevisions() uses it to enforce the 5 revision limit and delete older archived revisions.

Audit Trail - Provides a historical record of the revision chain, useful for debugging and understanding upgrade history.

camilamacedo86 · 2025-11-09T19:19:22Z

internal/operator-controller/applier/boxcutter.go

+			if err := bc.Client.Get(ctx, client.ObjectKey{Name: currentRevision.Name}, updated); err != nil {
+				return false, "", fmt.Errorf("fetching updated revision: %w", err)
+			}
+			currentRevision = updated


After in-place patch, currentRevision pointed to stale object with old annotations.
It is a bug fixes required to allow we move forward here and pass on the tests.
The scenario where it would fail is: v1.0.0 → v1.0.1 with identical bundle (only metadata changes)

camilamacedo86 · 2025-11-09T19:22:05Z

internal/operator-controller/controllers/clusterextensionrevision_controller.go

+//   - When a revision is archived or being deleted, exclude it from results
+//   - When a revision has a higher or equal revision number, exclude it (not a previous revision)
+//   - Otherwise include active and paused revisions with matching owner
+func (c *ClusterExtensionRevisionReconciler) ListPreviousRevisions(ctx context.Context, rev *ocv1.ClusterExtensionRevision) ([]client.Object, error) {


Added ListPreviousRevisions(ctx, rev) that queries revisions by owner label and filters:

Same ClusterExtension owner

Revision number < current (only actual previous revisions)

Active or paused (not archived)

Why the revision number filter matters:
Without it, Revision-1 completing would archive Revision-2, causing "revision is archived" errors.

camilamacedo86 · 2025-11-09T19:28:07Z

internal/operator-controller/applier/boxcutter.go

+	// This makes the migrated revision consistent with revisions created by normal Boxcutter flow.
+	if err := controllerutil.SetControllerReference(ext, rev, m.Scheme); err != nil {
+		return fmt.Errorf("set ownerref: %w", err)
+	}


@tmshort That should address the JIRA you added: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OPRUN-4038

Once this PR is merged, I plan to extend the test coverage to validate the orphan scenario, ensuring we’re not leaving any orphans behind. If we identify any, we’ll handle them properly in a follow-up PR.

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings November 9, 2025 00:17

camilamacedo86 requested a review from a team as a code owner November 9, 2025 00:17

openshift-ci bot requested review from grokspawn and rashmigottipati November 9, 2025 00:17

Copilot AI reviewed Nov 9, 2025

View reviewed changes

camilamacedo86 changed the title ~~✨ (chore): (Boxcutter): Use label selector for listing previous revisions~~ WIP ✨ (chore): (Boxcutter): Use label selector for listing previous revisions Nov 9, 2025

openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Nov 9, 2025

camilamacedo86 force-pushed the boxcutter-use-labels-cache branch from 3a1c266 to 9c8f9af Compare November 9, 2025 11:26

camilamacedo86 force-pushed the boxcutter-use-labels-cache branch from 9c8f9af to 6026ae8 Compare November 9, 2025 11:35

camilamacedo86 changed the title ~~WIP ✨ (chore): (Boxcutter): Use label selector for listing previous revisions~~ WIP ✨ (chore): (Boxcutter): se label-based cache for revision lookups instead of explicit chains; Nov 9, 2025

camilamacedo86 changed the title ~~WIP ✨ (chore): (Boxcutter): se label-based cache for revision lookups instead of explicit chains;~~ ✨ (Valid for Boxcutter Runtime Only) switched to label-based revision lookups — faster, safer, and no orphans left behind. Nov 9, 2025

openshift-ci bot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Nov 9, 2025

openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Nov 9, 2025

camilamacedo86 force-pushed the boxcutter-use-labels-cache branch 4 times, most recently from c067348 to 6076304 Compare November 9, 2025 12:57

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings November 9, 2025 13:10

camilamacedo86 force-pushed the boxcutter-use-labels-cache branch from 6076304 to 5a89bed Compare November 9, 2025 13:10

Copilot AI reviewed Nov 9, 2025

View reviewed changes

internal/operator-controller/applier/boxcutter_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

internal/operator-controller/applier/boxcutter.go Show resolved Hide resolved

camilamacedo86 force-pushed the boxcutter-use-labels-cache branch from 5a89bed to fbf27d6 Compare November 9, 2025 13:50

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings November 9, 2025 18:24

camilamacedo86 force-pushed the boxcutter-use-labels-cache branch from fbf27d6 to c7ea251 Compare November 9, 2025 18:24

Copilot AI reviewed Nov 9, 2025

View reviewed changes

internal/operator-controller/controllers/clusterextensionrevision_controller.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

camilamacedo86 force-pushed the boxcutter-use-labels-cache branch from c7ea251 to ef2c006 Compare November 9, 2025 19:01

camilamacedo86 commented Nov 9, 2025

View reviewed changes

openshift-ci bot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Nov 9, 2025

camilamacedo86 commented Nov 9, 2025

View reviewed changes

camilamacedo86 requested review from perdasilva and tmshort November 9, 2025 19:32

✨ (Valid for Boxcutter Runtime Only) switched to label-based revision lookups — faster, safer, and no orphans left behind. #2315

Are you sure you want to change the base?

✨ (Valid for Boxcutter Runtime Only) switched to label-based revision lookups — faster, safer, and no orphans left behind. #2315

Conversation

camilamacedo86 commented Nov 9, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

What Changed

Why It's Better

Where it matters ( With Boxcutter runtime only )

Uh oh!

netlify bot commented Nov 9, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

✅ Deploy Preview for olmv1 ready!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull Request Overview

Reviewed Changes

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Nov 9, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

openshift-ci bot commented Nov 9, 2025

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull Request Overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull Request Overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

camilamacedo86 Nov 9, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

camilamacedo86 Nov 9, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

camilamacedo86 Nov 9, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

camilamacedo86 Nov 9, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

camilamacedo86 Nov 9, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

1 participant

camilamacedo86 commented Nov 9, 2025 •

edited

Loading

netlify bot commented Nov 9, 2025 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Nov 9, 2025 •

edited

Loading

camilamacedo86 Nov 9, 2025 •

edited

Loading

camilamacedo86 Nov 9, 2025 •

edited

Loading

camilamacedo86 Nov 9, 2025 •

edited

Loading