-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 577
OCPEDGE-1307: feat: add HighlyAvailableArbiter control plane topology as feature for techpreview #2082
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.
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
Merged
openshift-merge-bot
merged 1 commit into
openshift:master
from
eggfoobar:feature-arbiter-role
Dec 11, 2024
Merged
OCPEDGE-1307: feat: add HighlyAvailableArbiter control plane topology as feature for techpreview #2082
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
79 changes: 79 additions & 0 deletions
79
config/v1/tests/infrastructures.config.openshift.io/HighlyAvailableArbiter.yaml
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,79 @@ | ||
| apiVersion: apiextensions.k8s.io/v1 # Hack because controller-gen complains if we don't have this | ||
| name: "Infrastructure" | ||
| crdName: infrastructures.config.openshift.io | ||
| featureGates: | ||
| - HighlyAvailableArbiter | ||
| tests: | ||
| onCreate: | ||
| - name: Should be able to create a minimal Infrastructure | ||
| initial: | | ||
| apiVersion: config.openshift.io/v1 | ||
| kind: Infrastructure | ||
| spec: {} # No spec is required for a Infrastructure | ||
| expected: | | ||
| apiVersion: config.openshift.io/v1 | ||
| kind: Infrastructure | ||
| spec: {} | ||
| onUpdate: | ||
| - name: status should allow controlPlaneTopology value for `HighlyAvailableArbiter` | ||
| initial: | | ||
| apiVersion: config.openshift.io/v1 | ||
| kind: Infrastructure | ||
| spec: | ||
| platformSpec: | ||
| aws: {} | ||
| type: AWS | ||
| updated: | | ||
| apiVersion: config.openshift.io/v1 | ||
| kind: Infrastructure | ||
| spec: | ||
| platformSpec: | ||
| type: AWS | ||
| aws: {} | ||
| status: | ||
| controlPlaneTopology: HighlyAvailableArbiter | ||
| infrastructureTopology: HighlyAvailable | ||
| platform: AWS | ||
| platformStatus: | ||
| aws: {} | ||
| type: AWS | ||
| expected: | | ||
| apiVersion: config.openshift.io/v1 | ||
| kind: Infrastructure | ||
| spec: | ||
| platformSpec: | ||
| type: AWS | ||
| aws: {} | ||
| status: | ||
| controlPlaneTopology: HighlyAvailableArbiter | ||
| cpuPartitioning: None | ||
| infrastructureTopology: HighlyAvailable | ||
| platform: AWS | ||
| platformStatus: | ||
| aws: | ||
| cloudLoadBalancerConfig: | ||
| dnsType: PlatformDefault | ||
| type: AWS | ||
| - name: should not allow changing infrastructureTopology value to `HighlyAvailableArbiter` | ||
| initial: | | ||
| apiVersion: config.openshift.io/v1 | ||
| kind: Infrastructure | ||
| spec: | ||
| platformSpec: | ||
| aws: {} | ||
| type: AWS | ||
| updated: | | ||
| apiVersion: config.openshift.io/v1 | ||
| kind: Infrastructure | ||
| spec: | ||
| platformSpec: | ||
| type: AWS | ||
| aws: {} | ||
| status: | ||
| controlPlaneTopology: HighlyAvailable | ||
| infrastructureTopology: HighlyAvailableArbiter | ||
| platform: AWS | ||
| platformStatus: | ||
| aws: {} | ||
| type: AWS | ||
| expectedStatusError: 'status.infrastructureTopology: Unsupported value: "HighlyAvailableArbiter": supported values: "HighlyAvailable", "SingleReplica"' |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This field should not be able to modified day 2 right? The test you have in place shows that it can be changed. Your proposal explicitly calls out that this cannot be changed day 2, so why does that test pass?
In general, I think this field should never have been mutable, perhaps we just need to make it immutable
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, this was an older test where we originally had planned to update in the future (i.e moving from arbiter cluster to regular 3Node cluster), but regardless of that, to my knowledge we don't have something that enforces the status of ControlPlaneTopology, so that's why this test passes.
Changing this status is not supported in the current version of OCP, and I don't know if it would be a problem to make it immutable for the time being, since I think that would be a behavior change that some components might be relying on, for example I don't know if during bootstrap this ever gets applied then changed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm going to bring this up at the control plane arch call today and see what we think. IMO, this should always have been marked as immutable (once its set that is,
""-> ""` should be allowed)