Conversation
|
Pipeline controller notification For optional jobs, comment This repository is configured in: LGTM mode |
|
@proietfb: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-115007, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state. 3 validation(s) were run on this bug
The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker. DetailsIn response to this:
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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
|
Hello @proietfb! Some important instructions when contributing to openshift/api: |
|
No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉 ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Repository YAML (base), Central YAML (inherited) Review profile: CHILL Plan: Advanced Run ID: ⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (7)
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
Included review availability: Your plan provides up to 2 included reviews per hour; 1 remains after this review. 📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe change removes Suggested reviewers: Priority: ⬇️ Low Merge Risk: ⚪ Minimal · up to The feature gate removal and unconditional validation updates are complete, with no remaining merge-blocking risk identified. 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 15✅ Passed checks (15 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Warning Some tools did not complete. Review the errors below. 🔧 golangci-lint (2.13.2)Error: build linters: unable to load custom analyzer "kubeapilinter": tools/_output/bin/kube-api-linter.so, plugin: not implemented Comment |
|
/hold Hold until openshift/machine-config-operator#6522 has been merged |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
Need to cleanup usages of this feature gate in our APIs here as well. Looks like: api/operator/v1/types_machineconfiguration.go Line 299 in fc72020 needs to be removed. |
93c1e0d to
f5cab74
Compare
f5cab74 to
6e56fc7
Compare
|
/unhold |
|
@proietfb: all tests passed! Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. DetailsInstructions 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-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
| // +openshift:validation:FeatureGateAwareXValidation:featureGate="",rule="self.?status.bootImageSkewEnforcementStatus.mode.orValue(\"\") == 'Automatic' ? self.?spec.managedBootImages.hasValue() || self.?status.managedBootImagesStatus.hasValue() : true",message="when skew enforcement is in Automatic mode, a boot image configuration is required" | ||
| // +openshift:validation:FeatureGateAwareXValidation:featureGate="",rule="self.?status.bootImageSkewEnforcementStatus.mode.orValue(\"\") == 'Automatic' ? !(self.?spec.managedBootImages.machineManagers.hasValue()) || size(self.spec.managedBootImages.machineManagers) > 0 : true",message="when skew enforcement is in Automatic mode, managedBootImages.machineManagers must not be an empty list" | ||
| // +openshift:validation:FeatureGateAwareXValidation:featureGate="",rule="self.?status.bootImageSkewEnforcementStatus.mode.orValue(\"\") == 'Automatic' ? !(self.?spec.managedBootImages.machineManagers.hasValue()) || !self.spec.managedBootImages.machineManagers.exists(m, m.resource == 'machinesets' && m.apiGroup == 'machine.openshift.io') || self.spec.managedBootImages.machineManagers.exists(m, m.resource == 'machinesets' && m.apiGroup == 'machine.openshift.io' && m.selection.mode == 'All') : true",message="when skew enforcement is in Automatic mode, any MachineAPI MachineSet MachineManager must use selection mode 'All'" | ||
| // +openshift:validation:FeatureGateAwareXValidation:featureGate="",rule="self.?status.bootImageSkewEnforcementStatus.mode.orValue(\"\") == 'Automatic' ? !(self.?status.managedBootImagesStatus.machineManagers.hasValue()) || self.status.managedBootImagesStatus.machineManagers.exists(m, m.selection.mode == 'All' && m.resource == 'machinesets' && m.apiGroup == 'machine.openshift.io'): true",message="when skew enforcement is in Automatic mode, managedBootImagesStatus must contain a MachineManager opting in all MachineAPI MachineSets" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These no longer need to be the featureset aware validation, they can switch to the normal kubebuilder +kubebuilder:XValidation:rule=,message= style
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @JoelSpeed I'm going to update this part.
…ault API OCPBUGS-115007: Remove BootImageSkewEnforcement feature gate from Default API
6e56fc7 to
2e5d2cc
Compare
As part of OCPBUGS-105412 this PR has the meaning of removing BootImageSkewEnforcement default api gate.