⚠️ ClusterExtensionRevision API Updates by dtfranz · Pull Request #2491 · operator-framework/operator-controller

dtfranz · 2026-02-06T07:09:34Z

Fixing some missing flags and godoc comments brought up via API review.

Reviewer Checklist

API Go Documentation
Tests: Unit Tests (and E2E Tests, if appropriate)
Comprehensive Commit Messages
Links to related GitHub Issue(s)

netlify · 2026-02-06T07:09:40Z

✅ Deploy Preview for olmv1 ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	`1225187`
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/olmv1/deploys/6992c6e02ea96900088ac8c8
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-2491--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.

dtfranz · 2026-02-06T07:10:05Z

/hold

codecov · 2026-02-06T07:58:35Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 69.45%. Comparing base (1624bed) to head (1225187).
⚠️ Report is 11 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2491      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   69.82%   69.45%   -0.37%     
==========================================
  Files         102      102              
  Lines        8496     8505       +9     
==========================================
- Hits         5932     5907      -25     
- Misses       2091     2129      +38     
+ Partials      473      469       -4

Flag	Coverage Δ
e2e	`45.89% <0.00%> (-0.28%)`	⬇️
experimental-e2e	`12.78% <0.00%> (-0.12%)`	⬇️
unit	`57.89% <100.00%> (-0.09%)`	⬇️

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.

pedjak

I would expect additional validation tests to add, given that we added a few more restrictions/checks in this PR. Like for checking min/max size of given arrays, etc.

pedjak · 2026-02-06T15:17:43Z

api/v1/clusterextensionrevision_types.go

 	//
 	// Once set, even if empty, the phases field is immutable.
 	//
+	// Each phase in the list must have a unique name. The maximum number of phases is 20.


should we also set the min number of phases to 1?

Sure, unless we can think of a genuinely useful reason to create a no-op CER? I can't think of one though.

Update: Looks like we've intentionally built in the ability to have phases initially unset, and allow the normally immutable list to be updated once. If we want to preserve that, we can't set the minimum length to 1 with omitempty present. Removing omitempty removes our ability to leave it unset. Is it vital that we keep this in place?

While we only use inline objects, it's ok to set a minimum. When we move to sharding, it could be that we'll want to create the ClusterExtensionRevision object first, then create the shards with the ownerref, then update the revision with the shard refs.

Here's the helm chunked secret implementation: https://github.com/operator-framework/helm-operator-plugins/blob/f1e4eaf3b3924d3339dda2eee7f4520c47fd6162/pkg/storage/chunked.go#L62-L90

There we precompute everything, then:

Create the immutable index object with all of the chunk references pre-filled

Create the immutable chunks with owner refs to the index

We can do the same with the CER right?

Make its phases fully immutable

Generate the phase object contents and figure out what the names are going to be so we can pre-fill references in the CER

Generate the CER with the phase object references pre-filled

Generate the phase objects with the CER ownerRef

That way:

If we try to read the phases from the CER after 3, but before 4, we correctly get an error instead of incorrectly assuming there are no phases

If the CER is deleted between 3 and 4, we'll end up putting an ownerref on the phase objects that for an object that is already deleted and garbage collect will automatically delete the phase objects.

Phases are immutable and create-only and we don't have to handle errors that could occur on an attempt to update the phases.

Thanks Joe - agreed on these points, but this will take some more work beyond just the API changes. Can we take care of this as a separate issue? Or is getting in the full immutability for phases too critical?

api/v1/clusterextensionrevision_types.go

Copilot

Pull request overview

This PR updates the ClusterExtensionRevision API surface (Go types + generated CRDs/manifests) to address gaps identified during API review, primarily by tightening schema requirements and improving documentation.

Changes:

Make spec.lifecycleState and per-object collisionProtection required (removing CRD defaults).
Add/clarify schema constraints for inline phases (e.g., max phases/objects) and expand lifecycle/phase documentation.
Update operator-controller generator/tests and API validation tests to populate newly-required fields.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 8 out of 8 changed files in this pull request and generated 4 comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
manifests/experimental.yaml	Updates experimental manifest schema/docs to reflect new required fields and constraints.
manifests/experimental-e2e.yaml	Mirrors the experimental schema/doc updates for e2e manifests.
helm/olmv1/base/operator-controller/crd/experimental/olm.operatorframework.io_clusterextensionrevisions.yaml	Updates the shipped Helm CRD for ClusterExtensionRevision with the new requirements/validations.
api/v1/clusterextensionrevision_types.go	Source-of-truth API changes: required markers, added validations/limits, doc updates.
api/v1/clusterextensionrevision_types_test.go	Adds/updates envtest-backed validity/immutability tests for the new schema.
api/v1/validation_test.go	Updates validation tests to set `LifecycleState` where required.
internal/operator-controller/applier/boxcutter.go	Ensures generated revision objects always set `CollisionProtection`.
internal/operator-controller/applier/boxcutter_test.go	Updates expectations to include `CollisionProtection` in generated revision objects.

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)

api/v1/clusterextensionrevision_types.go:60

LifecycleState is marked +required and the CRD now requires it, but the Go JSON tag still uses omitempty. This is inconsistent with other required fields in this repo (which typically omit omitempty) and can cause marshaling to silently drop the field when the zero value is present, producing invalid objects. Consider removing omitempty (and update any constructors/tests that currently rely on omitting the field, e.g. helpers that build ClusterExtensionRevisionSpec{Revision: ...} without a lifecycleState).

	// +required
	// +kubebuilder:validation:Enum=Active;Archived
	// +kubebuilder:validation:XValidation:rule="oldSelf == 'Active' || oldSelf == 'Archived' && oldSelf == self", message="cannot un-archive"
	LifecycleState ClusterExtensionRevisionLifecycleState `json:"lifecycleState,omitempty"`

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

api/v1/clusterextensionrevision_types.go

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 8 out of 8 changed files in this pull request and generated 6 comments.

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

api/v1/clusterextensionrevision_types.go

manifests/experimental.yaml

manifests/experimental-e2e.yaml

api/v1/clusterextensionrevision_types_test.go

...operator-controller/crd/experimental/olm.operatorframework.io_clusterextensionrevisions.yaml

Fixing some missing flags and godoc comments brought up via API review. Signed-off-by: Daniel Franz <dfranz@redhat.com>

dtfranz · 2026-02-17T04:05:28Z

/unhold

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 8 out of 8 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

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

Copilot · 2026-02-17T04:09:45Z

api/v1/clusterextensionrevision_types_test.go

+		"phases entries must have no more than 50 objects": {
+			spec: ClusterExtensionRevisionSpec{
+				LifecycleState: ClusterExtensionRevisionLifecycleStateActive,
+				Revision:       1,
+				Phases: []ClusterExtensionRevisionPhase{
+					{
+						Name:    "too-many-objects",
+						Objects: make([]ClusterExtensionRevisionObject, 51),
+					},
+				},
+			},
+			valid: false,
+		},


The test case "phases entries must have no more than 50 objects" creates 51 ClusterExtensionRevisionObject instances using make(), which initializes them with zero values. Since CollisionProtection is now a required field, all 51 objects will have an empty CollisionProtection value that doesn't match the enum constraint. This test will likely fail due to the missing required field rather than testing the maxItems validation as intended. Consider initializing the objects with a valid CollisionProtection value to ensure the test properly validates the maxItems constraint.

Copilot · 2026-02-17T04:09:46Z

api/v1/clusterextensionrevision_types_test.go

+		"phases must have no more than 20 phases": {
+			spec: ClusterExtensionRevisionSpec{
+				LifecycleState: ClusterExtensionRevisionLifecycleStateActive,
+				Revision:       1,
+				Phases:         make([]ClusterExtensionRevisionPhase, 21),
+			},
+			valid: false,
+		},


The test case "phases must have no more than 20 phases" creates 21 ClusterExtensionRevisionPhase instances using make(), which initializes them with zero values including empty Name strings and empty Objects slices. Since Name has minLength=1 and Objects is required, these phases will fail validation for missing required fields rather than testing the maxItems constraint on phases. Consider initializing the phases with valid Name values and at least one valid Object to ensure the test properly validates the 20-phase limit.

pedjak

/lgtm

perdasilva · 2026-02-17T13:19:07Z

/approve

openshift-ci · 2026-02-17T13:19:15Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: perdasilva

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

The pull request process is described here

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

~~OWNERS~~ [perdasilva]

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

openshift-ci bot requested review from rashmigottipati and trgeiger February 6, 2026 07:09

dtfranz changed the title ~~⚠ ClusterExtensionRevision API Updates~~ ⚠ WIP: ClusterExtensionRevision API Updates Feb 6, 2026

openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Feb 6, 2026

dtfranz changed the title ~~⚠ WIP: ClusterExtensionRevision API Updates~~ ⚠️ WIP: ClusterExtensionRevision API Updates Feb 6, 2026

dtfranz marked this pull request as draft February 6, 2026 07:12

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 Feb 6, 2026

dtfranz force-pushed the cer-api-edits branch from 5a0ef97 to 6e4fa46 Compare February 6, 2026 07:24

pedjak reviewed Feb 6, 2026

View reviewed changes

dtfranz force-pushed the cer-api-edits branch from 6e4fa46 to 1be387b Compare February 9, 2026 09:58

openshift-merge-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Feb 9, 2026

dtfranz force-pushed the cer-api-edits branch from 1be387b to f417730 Compare February 9, 2026 10:14

openshift-merge-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Feb 9, 2026

pedjak reviewed Feb 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

api/v1/clusterextensionrevision_types.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

perdasilva mentioned this pull request Feb 11, 2026

OPRUN-4440,OPRUN-4230: Enable Boxcutter in TPNU openshift/cluster-olm-operator#163

Open

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings February 12, 2026 06:56

dtfranz force-pushed the cer-api-edits branch from f417730 to 2f874e5 Compare February 12, 2026 06:56

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of dtfranz February 12, 2026 06:56 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Feb 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

api/v1/clusterextensionrevision_types.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

api/v1/clusterextensionrevision_types.go Show resolved Hide resolved

api/v1/clusterextensionrevision_types.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

api/v1/clusterextensionrevision_types.go Show resolved Hide resolved

dtfranz force-pushed the cer-api-edits branch 2 times, most recently from 35e7673 to 66b75c9 Compare February 12, 2026 07:49

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings February 12, 2026 07:49

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of dtfranz February 12, 2026 07:50 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Feb 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

ClusterExtensionRevision API Updates

1225187

Fixing some missing flags and godoc comments brought up via API review. Signed-off-by: Daniel Franz <dfranz@redhat.com>

dtfranz force-pushed the cer-api-edits branch from 66b75c9 to 1225187 Compare February 16, 2026 07:27

dtfranz changed the title ~~⚠️ WIP: ClusterExtensionRevision API Updates~~ ⚠️ ClusterExtensionRevision API Updates Feb 17, 2026

openshift-ci bot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Feb 17, 2026

dtfranz marked this pull request as ready for review February 17, 2026 04:05

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings February 17, 2026 04:05

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 Feb 17, 2026

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of dtfranz February 17, 2026 04:06 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Feb 17, 2026

View reviewed changes

pedjak reviewed Feb 17, 2026

View reviewed changes

openshift-ci bot assigned pedjak Feb 17, 2026

openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Feb 17, 2026

openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Feb 17, 2026

perdasilva added the api-diff-lint-override label Feb 17, 2026

openshift-merge-bot bot merged commit 130c987 into operator-framework:main Feb 17, 2026
36 of 37 checks passed

Conversation

dtfranz commented Feb 6, 2026

Reviewer Checklist

Uh oh!

netlify bot commented Feb 6, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

✅ Deploy Preview for olmv1 ready!

Uh oh!

dtfranz commented Feb 6, 2026

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Feb 6, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

pedjak left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pedjak Feb 6, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dtfranz Feb 9, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dtfranz Feb 9, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

perdasilva Feb 10, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

joelanford Feb 11, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dtfranz Feb 17, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

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!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

dtfranz commented Feb 17, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Feb 17, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Feb 17, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pedjak left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

perdasilva commented Feb 17, 2026

Uh oh!

openshift-ci bot commented Feb 17, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

netlify bot commented Feb 6, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Feb 6, 2026 •

edited

Loading