Skip to content

Bug 1985125: fix(og): Fix missing MultiOperatorGroups condition in some cases (#2305) #148

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
Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 3, 2021
Merged

Bug 1985125: fix(og): Fix missing MultiOperatorGroups condition in some cases (#2305) #148

merged 1 commit into from
Aug 3, 2021

Conversation

dinhxuanvu
Copy link
Member

In some special cases, the MultiOperatorGroups condition is missing
even though there are multiple OGs in the same namespace. The process
of adding this condition happens during syncNamespace which sometimes
doesn't happen if syncOperatorGroups fails prematurely due to other
errors. Moving the MultiOperatorGroups condition to syncOperatorGroups
to ensure it will be run everytime.

Upstream-repository: operator-lifecycle-manager
Upstream-commit: d140ef062304440b37712692a170a93b3dc76fba

Signed-off-by: Vu Dinh [email protected]

@dinhxuanvu
fix(og): Fix missing MultiOperatorGroups condition in some cases (#2305)
64cf268 
In some special cases, the MultiOperatorGroups condition is missing
even though there are multiple OGs in the same namespace. The process
of adding this condition happens during syncNamespace which sometimes
doesn't happen if syncOperatorGroups fails prematurely due to other
errors. Moving the MultiOperatorGroups condition to syncOperatorGroups
to ensure it will be run everytime.

Upstream-repository: operator-lifecycle-manager
Upstream-commit: d140ef062304440b37712692a170a93b3dc76fba

Signed-off-by: Vu Dinh <[email protected]>
@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Aug 3, 2021

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: dinhxuanvu

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:

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

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot requested review from ankitathomas and njhale August 3, 2021 18:19
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Aug 3, 2021
@dinhxuanvu dinhxuanvu changed the title fix(og): Fix missing MultiOperatorGroups condition in some cases (#2305) Bug 1985125: fix(og): Fix missing MultiOperatorGroups condition in some cases (#2305) Aug 3, 2021
@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Aug 3, 2021

@dinhxuanvu: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1985125, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state. The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug
  • bug is open, matching expected state (open)
  • bug target release (4.9.0) matches configured target release for branch (4.9.0)
  • bug is in the state ASSIGNED, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, ON_DEV, POST, POST)

No GitHub users were found matching the public email listed for the QA contact in Bugzilla ([email protected]), skipping review request.

In response to this:

Bug 1985125: fix(og): Fix missing MultiOperatorGroups condition in some cases (#2305)

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/test-infra repository.

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added bugzilla/severity-low Referenced Bugzilla bug's severity is low for the branch this PR is targeting. bugzilla/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. labels Aug 3, 2021
@timflannagan
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Aug 3, 2021
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

1 similar comment
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@dinhxuanvu
Copy link
Member Author

/retest

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest-required

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@dinhxuanvu
Copy link
Member Author

/retest

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot merged commit 06abc61 into openshift:master Aug 3, 2021
@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Aug 3, 2021

@dinhxuanvu: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged:

Bugzilla bug 1985125 has been moved to the MODIFIED state.

In response to this:

Bug 1985125: fix(og): Fix missing MultiOperatorGroups condition in some cases (#2305)

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/test-infra repository.

ankitathomas pushed a commit to ankitathomas/operator-framework-olm that referenced this pull request Sep 8, 2021
@camilamacedo86 @ankitathomas
(fix) : Fix check to verify OCP label versions when it is =v4.x (open…
1f5a4eb 
…shift#148)

Upstream-repository: api
Upstream-commit: e4b9266c693b1443c33fff99aabd49c07232e6ba
ankitathomas pushed a commit to ankitathomas/operator-framework-olm that referenced this pull request Sep 9, 2021
@camilamacedo86 @ankitathomas
(fix) : Fix check to verify OCP label versions when it is =v4.x (open…
e8ed9cd 
…shift#148)

Upstream-repository: api
Upstream-commit: e4b9266c693b1443c33fff99aabd49c07232e6ba
timflannagan pushed a commit to timflannagan/operator-framework-olm that referenced this pull request Sep 28, 2021
@camilamacedo86 @timflannagan
(fix) : Fix check to verify OCP label versions when it is =v4.x (open…
f8ff277 
…shift#148)

Upstream-repository: api
Upstream-commit: e4b9266c693b1443c33fff99aabd49c07232e6ba
timflannagan pushed a commit to timflannagan/operator-framework-olm that referenced this pull request Sep 28, 2021
@camilamacedo86 @timflannagan
(fix) : Fix check to verify OCP label versions when it is =v4.x (open…
84df4d6 
…shift#148)

Upstream-repository: api
Upstream-commit: e4b9266c693b1443c33fff99aabd49c07232e6ba
timflannagan pushed a commit to timflannagan/operator-framework-olm that referenced this pull request Sep 29, 2021
@camilamacedo86 @timflannagan
(fix) : Fix check to verify OCP label versions when it is =v4.x (open…
26f9517 
…shift#148)

Upstream-repository: api
Upstream-commit: e4b9266c693b1443c33fff99aabd49c07232e6ba
timflannagan pushed a commit to timflannagan/operator-framework-olm that referenced this pull request Sep 29, 2021
@camilamacedo86 @timflannagan
(fix) : Fix check to verify OCP label versions when it is =v4.x (open…
88925f9 
…shift#148)

Upstream-repository: api
Upstream-commit: e4b9266c693b1443c33fff99aabd49c07232e6ba
timflannagan pushed a commit to timflannagan/operator-framework-olm that referenced this pull request Oct 13, 2021
@camilamacedo86 @timflannagan
(fix) : Fix check to verify OCP label versions when it is =v4.x (open…
46da739 
…shift#148)

Upstream-repository: api
Upstream-commit: e4b9266c693b1443c33fff99aabd49c07232e6ba
njhale pushed a commit to njhale/operator-framework-olm that referenced this pull request Oct 13, 2021
@camilamacedo86 @njhale
(fix) : Fix check to verify OCP label versions when it is =v4.x (open…
1b1751a 
…shift#148)

Upstream-repository: api
Upstream-commit: e4b9266c693b1443c33fff99aabd49c07232e6ba
timflannagan pushed a commit to njhale/operator-framework-olm that referenced this pull request Nov 15, 2021
@camilamacedo86 @timflannagan
(fix) : Fix check to verify OCP label versions when it is =v4.x (open…
75bba24 
…shift#148)

Upstream-repository: api
Upstream-commit: e4b9266c693b1443c33fff99aabd49c07232e6ba
perdasilva pushed a commit to perdasilva/operator-framework-olm that referenced this pull request Mar 4, 2022
@camilamacedo86 @perdasilva
(fix) : Fix check to verify OCP label versions when it is =v4.x (open…
c26a4f8 
…shift#148)

Upstream-repository: api
Upstream-commit: e4b9266c693b1443c33fff99aabd49c07232e6ba
perdasilva pushed a commit to perdasilva/operator-framework-olm that referenced this pull request Mar 4, 2022
@camilamacedo86 @perdasilva
(fix) : Fix check to verify OCP label versions when it is =v4.x (open…
6b562b1 
…shift#148)

Upstream-repository: api
Upstream-commit: e4b9266c693b1443c33fff99aabd49c07232e6ba
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@ankitathomas ankitathomas Awaiting requested review from ankitathomas

@njhale njhale Awaiting requested review from njhale

Assignees

@timflannagan timflannagan

Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. bugzilla/severity-low Referenced Bugzilla bug's severity is low for the branch this PR is targeting. bugzilla/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@dinhxuanvu @timflannagan @openshift-bot