Skip to content

Write cluster operator status after successful startup (attempt #2) #652

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 2 commits into from
Jan 29, 2019
Merged

Write cluster operator status after successful startup (attempt #2) #652

merged 2 commits into from
Jan 29, 2019

Conversation

jpeeler
Copy link

@jpeeler jpeeler commented Jan 8, 2019

Copied from #626

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files. labels Jan 8, 2019
@jpeeler jpeeler changed the title Operator status 2 Write cluster operator status after successful startup (attempt #2) Jan 8, 2019
ecordell
ecordell reviewed Jan 8, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@ecordell ecordell left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Shouldn't there be a values file that sets writeStatusName to operator-lifecycle-manager for okd/ocp deploys? We also want it to be in /manifests, right?

@jpeeler
Copy link
Author

jpeeler commented Jan 8, 2019

I actually do have that file, though now I realize that it needs updating.

@jpeeler jpeeler force-pushed the operator-status-2 branch from 4a5ac60 to ba4d015 Compare January 8, 2019 20:55
abhinavdahiya
abhinavdahiya reviewed Jan 8, 2019
View reviewed changes
abhinavdahiya
abhinavdahiya reviewed Jan 8, 2019
View reviewed changes
@jpeeler jpeeler force-pushed the operator-status-2 branch from ba4d015 to ce76c4d Compare January 8, 2019 21:55
@ecordell
Copy link
Member

ecordell commented Jan 8, 2019

/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 8, 2019
@jpeeler
Copy link
Author

jpeeler commented Jan 8, 2019

/retest
latest error:
time="2019-01-08T22:46:53Z" level=debug msg="Still waiting for the console route: Unauthorized"
time="2019-01-08T22:47:12Z" level=fatal msg="waiting for openshift-console URL: context deadline exceeded"

@jpeeler
Copy link
Author

jpeeler commented Jan 9, 2019

/test e2e-aws
e2e-aws-olm passed!

@jpeeler
Copy link
Author

jpeeler commented Jan 9, 2019

/test e2e-aws

2 similar comments
@ecordell
Copy link
Member

ecordell commented Jan 9, 2019

/test e2e-aws

@jpeeler
Copy link
Author

jpeeler commented Jan 9, 2019

/test e2e-aws

@jpeeler
Copy link
Author

jpeeler commented Jan 9, 2019

/test e2e-aws
new error:
unable to connect to image repository registry.svc.ci.openshift.org/ci-op-37q0tsxb/stable@sha256:e9c343db133b0517a5bb21d4af174cfc2ea84481faafdf359a3135627cc4c3cf: Get https://registry.svc.ci.openshift.org/v2/: net/http: request canceled while waiting for connection (Client.Timeout exceeded while awaiting headers)

@jpeeler
Copy link
Author

jpeeler commented Jan 9, 2019

/test e2e-aws

1 similar comment
@jpeeler
Copy link
Author

jpeeler commented Jan 9, 2019

/test e2e-aws

@jpeeler jpeeler force-pushed the operator-status-2 branch from ce76c4d to efb8cbe Compare January 9, 2019 18:06
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 9, 2019
@ecordell
Copy link
Member

ecordell commented Jan 9, 2019

/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 9, 2019
@ecordell
Copy link
Member

ecordell commented Jan 9, 2019

/retet

@ecordell ecordell closed this Jan 9, 2019
@ecordell ecordell reopened this Jan 9, 2019
@jpeeler
Copy link
Author

jpeeler commented Jan 9, 2019

These tests won't pass. The master team is working on a solution. Not going to retest any further at this point.

@jpeeler
Copy link
Author

jpeeler commented Jan 23, 2019

/retest

1 similar comment
@ecordell
Copy link
Member

/retest

@ecordell
Copy link
Member

ecordell commented Jan 24, 2019 via email

@jpeeler
Copy link
Author

jpeeler commented Jan 24, 2019

/retest

1 similar comment
@ecordell
Copy link
Member

/retest

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jan 25, 2019
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jan 26, 2019
@jpeeler
Copy link
Author

jpeeler commented Jan 28, 2019

library-go has been rebased to 1.12, so I've pinned the revision

@jpeeler
Copy link
Author

jpeeler commented Jan 28, 2019

/retest

2 similar comments
@jpeeler
Copy link
Author

jpeeler commented Jan 29, 2019

/retest

@ecordell
Copy link
Member

/retest

ecordell
ecordell reviewed Jan 29, 2019
View reviewed changes
@jpeeler jpeeler force-pushed the operator-status-2 branch 2 times, most recently from 47c6527 to 8b1dddb Compare January 29, 2019 17:57
@jpeeler
Copy link
Author

jpeeler commented Jan 29, 2019

/retest
yum repo failure

@jpeeler
Copy link
Author

jpeeler commented Jan 29, 2019

/retest

@jpeeler jpeeler force-pushed the operator-status-2 branch 2 times, most recently from f82e47c to 533d1bf Compare January 29, 2019 19:42
Jeff Peeler added 2 commits January 29, 2019 16:03
feat(olm): write operator status by default
60cddde 
`writeStatusName` may be passed as an argument set to the name in which to write
the status. The default is `openshift-operator-lifecycle-manager` with an empty
string disabling the behavior.

If the proper openshift API group isn't found, the status update will be
skipped.
chore(olm): run make vendor
1a5ed12 
This was done after specifically requesting these versions:
go get github.com/openshift/api@master
go get github.com/openshift/client-go@master
go get github.com/openshift/library-go@22b2ba2f485f7db26036f0aa1c036e32c88377eb
@ecordell
Copy link
Member

/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 29, 2019
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: ecordell, jpeeler

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-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit f474ec8 into operator-framework:master Jan 29, 2019
ecordell pushed a commit to ecordell/operator-lifecycle-manager that referenced this pull request Mar 8, 2019
@openshift-merge-robot
Merge pull request operator-framework#652 from jpeeler/operator-status-2
0b3b333 
Write cluster operator status after successful startup (attempt #2)
@njhale njhale added the kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature. label Mar 19, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@ecordell ecordell ecordell left review comments

@abhinavdahiya abhinavdahiya abhinavdahiya left review comments

@alecmerdler alecmerdler Awaiting requested review from alecmerdler

Assignees

@ecordell ecordell

Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
6 participants
@jpeeler @ecordell @openshift-ci-robot @abhinavdahiya @njhale @openshift-merge-robot