do not reconcile older storageconsumer #3129
Conversation
| @@ -161,6 +162,19 @@ func (r *StorageConsumerReconciler) reconcileEnabledPhases() (reconcile.Result, | |||
| return reconcile.Result{}, err | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| if storageCluster.Spec.AllowRemoteStorageConsumers { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do we need this check here. It is implicit that if we have a pre 4.19 consumer then we don't proceed
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was adding it to not always check for version if we weren't in provider mode, anyways removed.
| consumerProcessed, exist := r.storageConsumer.GetAnnotations()[util.StorageConsumer418ProcessedAnnotationKey] | ||
| if clientOperatorVersion.Major == 4 && | ||
| clientOperatorVersion.Minor == 18 && | ||
| (!exist || consumerProcessed == util.StorageConsumer418ProcessedAnnotationPending) { | ||
| return reconcile.Result{}, nil | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please remove any annotation logic from this PR. We will introduce similar logic based on feedback coming from the upgrade controller implementation
| For(&ocsv1alpha1.StorageConsumer{}, builder.WithPredicates( | ||
| predicate.Or( | ||
| predicate.GenerationChangedPredicate{}, | ||
| predicate.AnnotationChangedPredicate{}, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please remove any annotation logic from this PR. We will introduce similar logic based on feedback coming from the upgrade controller implementation
Signed-off-by: Leela Venkaiah G <[email protected]>
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: leelavg 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 |
leelavg
changed the title
a separate controller will process older storageconsumer owned resources and until then storageconsumer controller should not proceed with reconcililation.