MGMT-20119: Create feature gate to allow installing TNA using the API #7523

giladravid16 · 2025-04-09T13:49:53Z

This is the first PR for adding support for TNA Clusters in assisted-service.
The purpose of this PR is to add the minimum required to install TNA clusters using the REST API.
The changes include:

A new feature gate that when enabled it allows us to set a host's role to "arbiter", if it belongs to a cluster whose OCP version is 4.19 or higher (TNA Clusters are TP in 4.19).
Allow the user to set a cluster's control plane count to 2 if it's OCP version is 4.19 or higher.
If the cluster's control plane count is 2 then it must have at least 1 arbiter host.
Generating ignitions for arbiter hosts
Updating the validations and transitions to check arbiter hosts as well.

To check this PR I used my build to install a few TNA clusters and verified that the clusters installed successfully.

List all the issues related to this PR

Closes MGMT-20119

What environments does this code impact?

Automation (CI, tools, etc)
Cloud
Operator Managed Deployments
None

How was this code tested?

assisted-test-infra environment
dev-scripts environment
Reviewer's test appreciated
Waiting for CI to do a full test run
Manual (Elaborate on how it was tested)
No tests needed

Checklist

Title and description added to both, commit and PR.
Relevant issues have been associated (see CONTRIBUTING guide)
This change does not require a documentation update (docstring, docs, README, etc)
Does this change include unit-tests (note that code changes require unit-tests)

Reviewers Checklist

Are the title and description (in both PR and commit) meaningful and clear?
Is there a bug required (and linked) for this change?
Should this PR be backported?

openshift-ci-robot · 2025-04-09T13:49:58Z

openshift-ci · 2025-04-09T13:50:09Z

Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request.
If you want CI signal for your change, please convert it to an actual PR.
You can still manually trigger a test run with /test all

openshift-ci · 2025-04-09T13:51:06Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: giladravid16

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:

~~OWNERS~~ [giladravid16]

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

internal/cluster/validator.go

internal/ignition/installmanifests.go

openshift-ci-robot · 2025-04-21T13:32:00Z

openshift-ci-robot · 2025-04-21T13:32:12Z

openshift-ci-robot · 2025-04-21T13:32:20Z

openshift-ci-robot · 2025-04-21T13:32:26Z

codecov · 2025-04-22T08:54:56Z

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 82.06897% with 26 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 67.37%. Comparing base (ecf4703) to head (91d052d).
Report is 23 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
internal/ignition/installmanifests.go	68.00%	11 Missing and 5 partials ⚠️
internal/provider/baremetal/installConfig.go	37.50%	5 Missing ⚠️
internal/bminventory/inventory.go	89.74%	2 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
internal/host/transition.go	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #7523      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   67.30%   67.37%   +0.06%     
==========================================
  Files         334      335       +1     
  Lines       42293    42454     +161     
==========================================
+ Hits        28465    28603     +138     
- Misses      11256    11273      +17     
- Partials     2572     2578       +6

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
internal/cluster/cluster.go	`65.56% <ø> (ø)`
internal/cluster/common.go	`76.35% <100.00%> (+0.82%)`	⬆️
internal/cluster/transition.go	`74.58% <100.00%> (+0.32%)`	⬆️
internal/cluster/validator.go	`94.98% <100.00%> (+0.07%)`	⬆️
internal/common/common.go	`32.02% <100.00%> (+1.04%)`	⬆️
internal/host/common.go	`88.88% <100.00%> (ø)`
internal/host/conditions.go	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`
internal/host/hostutil/host_utils.go	`37.14% <100.00%> (ø)`
internal/host/validator.go	`83.43% <100.00%> (+0.03%)`	⬆️
internal/installcfg/builder/builder.go	`80.18% <100.00%> (+1.08%)`	⬆️
... and 5 more

... and 10 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

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

carbonin · 2025-04-23T13:00:36Z

internal/bminventory/inventory.go

+	if highAvailabilityMode == models.ClusterCreateParamsHighAvailabilityModeFull {
+		var minMasterHostsNeededForInstallation int64 = common.MinMasterHostsNeededForInstallationInHaMode
+		minVersion := common.MinimumVersionForNonStandardHAOCPControlPlane
+		if !arbiterClustersNotSupported {


I'd prefer this get reversed in some way so we don't have a double negative here. It's harder to reason about.

carbonin · 2025-04-23T13:03:41Z

internal/bminventory/inventory.go

+		minVersion := common.MinimumVersionForNonStandardHAOCPControlPlane
+		if !arbiterClustersNotSupported {
+			minMasterHostsNeededForInstallation = common.MinMasterHostsNeededForInstallationInHaArbiterMode
+			minVersion = common.MinimumVersionForArbiterClusters


The use of version in this function is very confusing.

It seems like we're trying to reason about different cases for different versions, but I never see the version in a condition anywhere. Is that right?

The variable minVersion is only for the error message (if the controlPlaneCount is not allowed). The variable minMasterHostsNeededForInstallation changes based on whether or not the version is at least 4.19 or not (either 2 or 3), and that is used to validate the controlPlaneCount.

carbonin · 2025-04-23T13:05:02Z

internal/bminventory/inventory.go

+			err = errors.Errorf("Cannot set role arbiter to host %s in infra-env %s, it must be bound to a cluster with openshift version %s or newer", host.ID, host.InfraEnvID, common.MinimumVersionForArbiterClusters)
+			if cluster != nil && cluster.OpenshiftVersion != "" {
+				arbiterClustersNotSupported, err2 := common.BaseVersionLessThan(common.MinimumVersionForArbiterClusters, cluster.OpenshiftVersion)
+				if err2 != nil {
+					return err2
+				}
+				if !arbiterClustersNotSupported {
+					err = nil
+				}
+			}


This logic feels a bit backwards. Why create the error first just to nil it out if we hit the success case?
Can you refactor this?

giladravid16 · 2025-04-24T12:03:54Z

/retest-required

carbonin · 2025-04-24T13:11:25Z

internal/bminventory/inventory.go

+		var err error
+		if !b.TNAClustersSupport {
+			err = errors.Errorf("TNA clusters support is disabled, cannot set role arbiter to host %s in infra-env %s", host.ID, host.InfraEnvID)
+		} else {
+			if cluster != nil && cluster.OpenshiftVersion != "" {
+				arbiterClustersSupported, err2 := common.BaseVersionGreaterOrEqual(common.MinimumVersionForArbiterClusters, cluster.OpenshiftVersion)
+				if err2 != nil {
+					return err2
+				}
+				if !arbiterClustersSupported {
+					err = errors.Errorf("Cannot set role arbiter to host %s in infra-env %s, it must be bound to a cluster with openshift version %s or newer", host.ID, host.InfraEnvID, common.MinimumVersionForArbiterClusters)
+				}
+			} else {
+				err = errors.Errorf("Cannot set role arbiter to host %s in infra-env %s, it must be bound to a cluster with openshift version %s or newer", host.ID, host.InfraEnvID, common.MinimumVersionForArbiterClusters)
+			}
+		}
+		if err != nil {
+			log.Error(err)
+			return common.NewApiError(http.StatusBadRequest, err)
+		}


Suggested change

var err error

if !b.TNAClustersSupport {

err = errors.Errorf("TNA clusters support is disabled, cannot set role arbiter to host %s in infra-env %s", host.ID, host.InfraEnvID)

} else {

if cluster != nil && cluster.OpenshiftVersion != "" {

arbiterClustersSupported, err2 := common.BaseVersionGreaterOrEqual(common.MinimumVersionForArbiterClusters, cluster.OpenshiftVersion)

if err2 != nil {

return err2

}

if !arbiterClustersSupported {

err = errors.Errorf("Cannot set role arbiter to host %s in infra-env %s, it must be bound to a cluster with openshift version %s or newer", host.ID, host.InfraEnvID, common.MinimumVersionForArbiterClusters)

}

} else {

err = errors.Errorf("Cannot set role arbiter to host %s in infra-env %s, it must be bound to a cluster with openshift version %s or newer", host.ID, host.InfraEnvID, common.MinimumVersionForArbiterClusters)

}

}

if err != nil {

log.Error(err)

return common.NewApiError(http.StatusBadRequest, err)

}

if !b.TNAClustersSupport {

err := errors.Errorf("TNA clusters support is disabled, cannot set role arbiter to host %s in infra-env %s", host.ID, host.InfraEnvID)

log.Error(err)

return common.NewApiError(http.StatusBadRequest, err)

}

if cluster == nil || cluster.OpenshiftVersion == nil {

err := errors.Errorf("Cannot set role arbiter to host %s in infra-env %s, it must be bound to a cluster with openshift version %s or newer", host.ID, host.InfraEnvID, common.MinimumVersionForArbiterClusters)

log.Error(err)

return common.NewApiError(http.StatusBadRequest, err)

}

arbiterClustersSupported, err := common.BaseVersionGreaterOrEqual(common.MinimumVersionForArbiterClusters, cluster.OpenshiftVersion)

if err != nil {

return err

}

if !arbiterClustersSupported {

err := errors.Errorf("Cannot set role arbiter to host %s in infra-env %s, it must be bound to a cluster with openshift version %s or newer", host.ID, host.InfraEnvID, common.MinimumVersionForArbiterClusters)

log.Error(err)

return common.NewApiError(http.StatusBadRequest, err)

}

Not super urgent, but I generally prefer guards with early returns to a lot of "else" statements. I find something like this easier to read because you don't have to consider multiple conditions at the same time when thinking about why some code is running. Additionally you don't have to worry about error shadowing here.

Also if we want to deduplicate the logging I'd suggest logging the error from the caller rather than every error case in this function.

openshift-ci · 2025-04-24T14:41:52Z

@giladravid16: 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/edge-e2e-ai-operator-disconnected-capi	`91d052d`	link	true	`/test edge-e2e-ai-operator-disconnected-capi`
ci/prow/edge-e2e-nutanix-assisted-4-19	`91d052d`	link	true	`/test edge-e2e-nutanix-assisted-4-19`

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 added the jira/valid-reference Indicates that this PR references a valid Jira ticket of any type. label Apr 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 Apr 9, 2025

openshift-ci bot added size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. api-review Categorizes an issue or PR as actively needing an API review. labels Apr 9, 2025

openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Apr 9, 2025

giladravid16 force-pushed the MGMT-20119 branch from 111b84d to c4ad2fe Compare April 10, 2025 08:15

carbonin reviewed Apr 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

internal/cluster/validator.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

internal/ignition/installmanifests.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

internal/ignition/installmanifests.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

internal/ignition/installmanifests.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

giladravid16 force-pushed the MGMT-20119 branch 2 times, most recently from 0597f75 to 3375cdd Compare April 21, 2025 12:57

openshift-ci bot added size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Apr 21, 2025

giladravid16 force-pushed the MGMT-20119 branch from 3375cdd to 7de16eb Compare April 21, 2025 13:03

giladravid16 marked this pull request as ready for review April 22, 2025 07:27

openshift-ci bot requested review from carbonin and pastequo April 22, 2025 07:28

giladravid16 changed the title ~~WIP: MGMT-20119: Create feature gate to allow installing TNA using the API~~ MGMT-20119: Create feature gate to allow installing TNA using the API Apr 22, 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 Apr 22, 2025

carbonin reviewed Apr 23, 2025

View reviewed changes

MGMT-20119: Create feature gate to allow installing TNA using the API

91d052d

giladravid16 force-pushed the MGMT-20119 branch from 7de16eb to 91d052d Compare April 24, 2025 07:41

carbonin reviewed Apr 24, 2025

View reviewed changes

MGMT-20119: Create feature gate to allow installing TNA using the API #7523

Are you sure you want to change the base?

MGMT-20119: Create feature gate to allow installing TNA using the API #7523

Conversation

giladravid16 commented Apr 9, 2025 • edited by openshift-ci bot Loading

List all the issues related to this PR

What environments does this code impact?

How was this code tested?

Checklist

Reviewers Checklist

openshift-ci-robot commented Apr 9, 2025 • edited by openshift-ci bot Loading

List all the issues related to this PR

What environments does this code impact?

How was this code tested?

Checklist

Reviewers Checklist

openshift-ci bot commented Apr 9, 2025

openshift-ci bot commented Apr 9, 2025

openshift-ci-robot commented Apr 21, 2025 • edited by openshift-ci bot Loading

List all the issues related to this PR

What environments does this code impact?

How was this code tested?

Checklist

Reviewers Checklist

openshift-ci-robot commented Apr 21, 2025 • edited by openshift-ci bot Loading

List all the issues related to this PR

What environments does this code impact?

How was this code tested?

Checklist

Reviewers Checklist

openshift-ci-robot commented Apr 21, 2025 • edited by openshift-ci bot Loading

List all the issues related to this PR

What environments does this code impact?

How was this code tested?

Checklist

Reviewers Checklist

openshift-ci-robot commented Apr 21, 2025 • edited by openshift-ci bot Loading

List all the issues related to this PR

What environments does this code impact?

How was this code tested?

Checklist

Reviewers Checklist

codecov bot commented Apr 22, 2025 • edited Loading

Codecov Report

carbonin Apr 23, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

giladravid16 Apr 24, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

carbonin Apr 23, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

giladravid16 Apr 24, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

carbonin Apr 23, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

giladravid16 Apr 24, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

giladravid16 commented Apr 24, 2025

carbonin Apr 24, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

openshift-ci bot commented Apr 24, 2025

giladravid16 commented Apr 9, 2025 •

edited by openshift-ci bot

Loading

openshift-ci-robot commented Apr 9, 2025 •

edited by openshift-ci bot

Loading

openshift-ci-robot commented Apr 21, 2025 •

edited by openshift-ci bot

Loading

openshift-ci-robot commented Apr 21, 2025 •

edited by openshift-ci bot

Loading

openshift-ci-robot commented Apr 21, 2025 •

edited by openshift-ci bot

Loading

openshift-ci-robot commented Apr 21, 2025 •

edited by openshift-ci bot

Loading

codecov bot commented Apr 22, 2025 •

edited

Loading