Skip to content

Conversation

@EmilienM
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

lentzi90 and others added 30 commits June 19, 2023 13:39
This adds a proposal for how CAPO could support more than one
microversion. The current situation is that we hard code a microversion
that is then used for all API calls. This is currently done for Nova.
Other clients are not configured with a version as of now.
Signed-off-by: Huy Mai <[email protected]>
The v1alpha7 tests were previously testing v1alpha6.
…_outdated_warnings

📖  remove outdated warnings
This commit makes security linting easier by never setting a TLS version
outside v1.2 or v1.3, even in case of an unacceptable user input.
🌱 Refactoring: never assign unacceptable TLS versions
…sion-proposal

📖 Proposal for microversion support
Also adds fuzz tests which would have caught this and any similar
issues.
🐛 Fix webhook panic when adding managed security groups
🐛 Remove a duplication for setting default port settings
It's some work we're preparing to build a new controller in charge of
creating servers and their dependencies (ports, etc). We don't want it
to depent on the OpenStack Machine object.
mdbooth and others added 15 commits October 29, 2024 08:49
This is step 1 of 3 in the dance necessary to add e2e tests. Next up,
the job definition itself (in 'openshift/release').

Signed-off-by: Stephen Finucane <[email protected]>
These are heavily based on the tests for other platforms, which are
currently included in the cluster-capi-operator tree [1] but which will
eventually be moved out to the openshift forks of the respective CAPI
implementations. The key difference from these is that (a) we don't
create a cluster (since we have the infracluster controller for this)
and (b) we obviously use OpenStack-specific semantics.

[1] https://github.com/openshift/cluster-capi-operator/tree/release-4.15/e2e

Co-Authored-By: Emilien Macchi <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Stephen Finucane <[email protected]>
As in openshift/cluster-version-operator@48fe9f2669 (install: Drop
single-node-developer profile, 2021-11-05,
openshift/cluster-version-operator#685).

There's an enhancement proposal for this profile [1], and the Code
Ready Containers folks took a run at using it in [2] before backing
off in [3].  I don't have any problems with having a specific CRC
profile, but if we end up going that way, we'll need a lot more
manifests with the annotation (e.g. we'll probably also want the CVO
manifests to include this annotation, or there won't be anything
consuming the admin-ack ConfigMaps ;).  This commit drops the
annotation from this repository to avoid distracting folks with dead
code.

[1]: https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/blob/2911c46bf7d2f22eb1ab81739b4f9c2603fd0c07/enhancements/single-node/developer-cluster-profile.md
[2]: crc-org/snc#338
[3]: crc-org/snc#373 (comment)
openshift/machine-api-operator@9c20871740 (annotate cloud credentials
request, 2023-11-14, openshift/machine-api-operator#1174) added this
capability to the machine-API analog of this manifest.  And
openshift/cluster-capi-operator@e305541274 (annotate credentials
request manifests, 2023-11-13, openshift/cluster-capi-operator#143)
annotated some cluster-API CredentialsRequests used for other
providers.  This commit catches cluster-API OpenStack up with those
other changes.

There is a risk that tech-preview clusters updating into this change
will have the CloudCredential capability implicitly enabled.  But
because TechPreviewNoUpgrade blocks minor updates, and we don't intend
to backport this to 4.14.z, that exposure is confined to unsuported
prerelease clusters.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Finucane <[email protected]>
Sync with what CAPO upstream has and update code for gophercloud v2.
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Oct 29, 2024
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Oct 29, 2024
@EmilienM EmilienM force-pushed the sync-main branch 2 times, most recently from 6e66ca5 to 59cff39 Compare October 30, 2024 19:34
@openshift-ci
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Oct 30, 2024

[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 ask for approval from emilienm. For more information see the Kubernetes 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:

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

@openshift-ci
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Oct 30, 2024

@EmilienM: The following tests 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/test-openshift 59cff39 link true /test test-openshift
ci/prow/e2e-techpreview 59cff39 link true /test e2e-techpreview
ci/prow/verify 59cff39 link true /test verify
ci/prow/security 59cff39 link false /test security
ci/prow/test 59cff39 link true /test test

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-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@EmilienM: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-43892. The bug has been updated to no longer refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

In 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.

@pierreprinetti pierreprinetti deleted the sync-main branch November 11, 2024 13:02
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

jira/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Jira bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. jira/valid-reference Indicates that this PR references a valid Jira ticket of any type.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.