Skip to content

OCPBUGS-55123: Fix apiVersion in compute machine set specs #92348

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

OCPBUGS-55123: Fix apiVersion in compute machine set specs #92348

wants to merge 1 commit into from
+3 −3

Conversation

jeana-redhat
Copy link
Contributor

@jeana-redhat jeana-redhat commented Apr 17, 2025 •
edited
Loading

@jeana-redhat jeana-redhat added this to the Continuous Release milestone Apr 17, 2025
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added jira/valid-reference Indicates that this PR references a valid Jira ticket of any type. jira/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Jira bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. labels Apr 17, 2025
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@jeana-redhat: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-55123, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug
  • bug is open, matching expected state (open)
  • bug target version (4.19.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.19.0)
  • bug is in the state ASSIGNED, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @huali9

The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

In response to this:

Version(s):
4.12+

Issue:
OCPBUGS-55123

Link to docs preview:
🚧

QE review:

  • QE has approved this change.

Additional information:

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.

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot requested a review from huali9 April 17, 2025 17:53
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. label Apr 17, 2025
@ocpdocs-previewbot
Copy link

ocpdocs-previewbot commented Apr 17, 2025 •
edited
Loading

🤖 Mon Apr 21 14:27:40 - Prow CI generated the docs preview:

https://92348--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/machine_management/creating-infrastructure-machinesets.html
https://92348--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/machine_management/creating_machinesets/creating-machineset-azure.html
https://92348--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/machine_management/creating_machinesets/creating-machineset-gcp.html
https://92348--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/machine_management/creating_machinesets/creating-machineset-vsphere.html

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@jeana-redhat: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-55123, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug
  • bug is open, matching expected state (open)
  • bug target version (4.19.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.19.0)
  • bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @huali9

In response to this:

Version(s):
4.12+

Issue:
OCPBUGS-55123

Link to docs preview:

QE review:

  • QE has approved this change.

Additional information:

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.

@jeana-redhat
Copy link
Contributor Author

@huali9 a global search to fix these turned up some instances in WinC and Multiarch. If those cases are outside your scope, let me know 🙂

@huali9
Copy link

huali9 commented Apr 18, 2025

Hi @jeana-redhat
Although I think WinC and Multiarch instances should be the same with normal instances in that respect(apiVersion), because in our CI I can see that they are all copied from a default worker machineset and then update some specific settings. For example: https://github.com/openshift/release/blob/master/ci-operator/step-registry/ipi/conf/vsphere/windows-machineset/ipi-conf-vsphere-windows-machineset-commands.sh#L23-L41
https://github.com/openshift/release/blob/master/ci-operator/step-registry/ipi/install/heterogeneous/ipi-install-heterogeneous-commands.sh#L195-L202 and https://github.com/openshift/release/blob/master/ci-operator/step-registry/ipi/install/heterogeneous/ipi-install-heterogeneous-commands.sh#L315-L317

But I think we'd better not touch WinC and Multiarch part, because we don't create WinC and Multiarch machines by default, and both apiVersion work. In addition, if we change it, I see another inconsistency in WinC and Multiarch part, like https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LqJUE8aOPAc4cwU4WE2I4o2XUsc_nWqs/view?usp=sharing and https://drive.google.com/file/d/17B_vep3X3r3yYqlrMT0HCspLy1y7yRua/view?usp=sharing
and I'm not sure if there are other inconsistencies.

Version(s):
4.12+

For versions, I am not sure from which OCP version the apiVersion was changed, but I'm sure it's machine.openshift.io/v1beta1 since 4.16, so I suggest 4.16+, what do you think?

@jeana-redhat
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @jeana-redhat Although I think WinC and Multiarch instances should be the same with normal instances in that respect(apiVersion), because in our CI I can see that they are all copied from a default worker machineset and then update some specific settings. For example: https://github.com/openshift/release/blob/master/ci-operator/step-registry/ipi/conf/vsphere/windows-machineset/ipi-conf-vsphere-windows-machineset-commands.sh#L23-L41 https://github.com/openshift/release/blob/master/ci-operator/step-registry/ipi/install/heterogeneous/ipi-install-heterogeneous-commands.sh#L195-L202 and https://github.com/openshift/release/blob/master/ci-operator/step-registry/ipi/install/heterogeneous/ipi-install-heterogeneous-commands.sh#L315-L317

But I think we'd better not touch WinC and Multiarch part, because we don't create WinC and Multiarch machines by default, and both apiVersion work. In addition, if we change it, I see another inconsistency in WinC and Multiarch part, like https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LqJUE8aOPAc4cwU4WE2I4o2XUsc_nWqs/view?usp=sharing and https://drive.google.com/file/d/17B_vep3X3r3yYqlrMT0HCspLy1y7yRua/view?usp=sharing and I'm not sure if there are other inconsistencies.

Ok, thanks! I will remove WinC and multiarch changes.

Version(s):
4.12+

For versions, I am not sure from which OCP version the apiVersion was changed, but I'm sure it's machine.openshift.io/v1beta1 since 4.16, so I suggest 4.16+, what do you think?

I probably misread something in my notes about this :) Will adjust to 4.16+, thanks!

@jeana-redhat jeana-redhat force-pushed the OCPBUGS-55123-fix-apiVersion-specs branch from 79fdf20 to 34b839b Compare April 21, 2025 14:20
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Apr 21, 2025
@jeana-redhat jeana-redhat added the peer-review-needed Signifies that the peer review team needs to review this PR label Apr 21, 2025
@openshift-ci OpenShift CI
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Apr 21, 2025

@jeana-redhat: all tests passed!

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.

@lahinson lahinson removed the peer-review-needed Signifies that the peer review team needs to review this PR label Apr 21, 2025
@lahinson lahinson added the peer-review-in-progress Signifies that the peer review team is reviewing this PR label Apr 21, 2025
lahinson
lahinson reviewed Apr 21, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@lahinson lahinson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@lahinson lahinson added peer-review-done Signifies that the peer review team has reviewed this PR and removed peer-review-in-progress Signifies that the peer review team is reviewing this PR labels Apr 21, 2025
@huali9
Copy link

huali9 commented Apr 22, 2025

/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Apr 22, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@lahinson lahinson lahinson left review comments

@huali9 huali9 Awaiting requested review from huali9

Assignees

@huali9 huali9

Labels
branch/enterprise-4.16 branch/enterprise-4.17 branch/enterprise-4.18 branch/enterprise-4.19 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. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. peer-review-done Signifies that the peer review team has reviewed this PR size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
Continuous Release
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
5 participants
@jeana-redhat @openshift-ci-robot @ocpdocs-previewbot @huali9 @lahinson