ClusterNetworkOperator API: promote the additionalRoutingCapabilities gate #2087

fedepaol · 2024-11-06T15:59:33Z

Promoting the feature gate as the deployed daemonset is being used by metallb and covered by MetalLB tests.

This feature is baremetal specific. By setting this flag, CNO will deploy the frr-k8s daemonset which is used (among others) by core features of metallb.
Part of this work is to move the daemonset from being deployed by the MetalLB operator to being deployed by CNO.

For the time being, we have a CI lane (gating PRs) that is flipping the feature gate and it's testing MetalLB functionalities plus another one testing the FRR-K8s functionalities.

Given the feature is baremetal specific, we need an exception to the regular process, as described here https://github.com/openshift/api?tab=readme-ov-file#defining-featuregate-e2e-tests

We added a periodic informing job here plus we have both telco and openshift QE validating MetalLB releases (and this feature as a consequence).

openshift-ci · 2024-11-06T15:59:53Z

Hello @fedepaol! Some important instructions when contributing to openshift/api:
API design plays an important part in the user experience of OpenShift and as such API PRs are subject to a high level of scrutiny to ensure they follow our best practices. If you haven't already done so, please review the OpenShift API Conventions and ensure that your proposed changes are compliant. Following these conventions will help expedite the api review process for your PR.

fedepaol · 2024-11-06T16:01:43Z

Adding @asood-rh as Openshift QE and @evgenLevin and @gkopels as Telco QE

jcaamano · 2024-11-07T10:59:20Z

@JoelSpeed For this error in verify-crd-schema:

error in operator/v1/zz_generated.crd-manifests/0000_70_network_01_networks-Default.crd.yaml: NoNewRequiredFields: crd/networks.operator.openshift.io version/v1 field/^.spec.additionalRoutingCapabilities.providers is new and may not be required

spec.additionalRoutingCapabilities itself is the new field and optional. Can't nested fields as spec.additionalRoutingCapabilities.providers be required?

evgenLevin · 2024-11-07T15:30:29Z

We have a running downstream Telco QE CI that verifies both MetalLB and frr-k8s.

JoelSpeed · 2024-11-09T18:11:12Z

spec.additionalRoutingCapabilities itself is the new field and optional. Can't nested fields as spec.additionalRoutingCapabilities.providers be required?

Yes, that should be permitted, why is the schema checker thinking it isn't 🤔 Out of interest, what happens if you add // +nullable to the AdditionalRoutingCapabilities field? Does that change the output of the checker?

JoelSpeed · 2024-11-09T18:28:19Z

I'm curious why the schema checker didn't pick this up before, I wonder if we have broken it somehow. Doing some investigations out of band

fedepaol · 2024-11-11T11:51:38Z

@JoelSpeed just tried but still getting " ERROR: :1:59: undefined field 'additionalRoutingCapabilities' "

jcaamano · 2024-11-11T12:00:01Z

@JoelSpeed just tried but still getting " ERROR: :1:59: undefined field 'additionalRoutingCapabilities' "

@fedepaol that's a different issue. Remember my suggestion of changing the validation to

// +openshift:validation:FeatureGateAwareXValidation:featureGate=RouteAdvertisements,requiredFeatureGate=RouteAdvertisements;AdditionalRoutingCapabilities,rule=...

jcaamano · 2024-11-12T19:31:51Z

@JoelSpeed The nullable attribute helped but we need more help :/

Would you know why the promoted field additionalRoutingCapabilities is not added to the generated operator/v1/zz_generated.featuregated-crd-manifests/networks.operator.openshift.io/RouteAdvertisements.yaml?
You can see how a test fails because of that here:
https://prow.ci.openshift.org/view/gs/test-platform-results/pr-logs/pull/openshift_api/2087/pull-ci-openshift-api-master-verify-crd-schema/1856288451670839296

error in operator/v1/zz_generated.featuregated-crd-manifests/networks.operator.openshift.io/RouteAdvertisements.yaml: MustNotExceedCostBudget: ^.properties[spec]: Invalid value: apiextensions.ValidationRule{Rule:"(has(self.additionalRoutingCapabilities) && ('FRR' in self.additionalRoutingCapabilities.providers)) || !has(self.defaultNetwork) || !has(self.defaultNetwork.ovnKubernetesConfig) || !has(self.defaultNetwork.ovnKubernetesConfig.routeAdvertisements) || self.defaultNetwork.ovnKubernetesConfig.routeAdvertisements != 'Enabled'", Message:"Route advertisements cannot be Enabled if 'FRR' routing capability provider is not available", MessageExpression:"", Reason:(*apiextensions.FieldValueErrorReason)(nil), FieldPath:"", OptionalOldSelf:(*bool)(nil)}: compilation failed: ERROR: <input>:1:5: undefined field 'additionalRoutingCapabilities'

Strangely enough this isn't failing in HEAD where the validation is in operator/v1/zz_generated.featuregated-crd-manifests/networks.operator.openshift.io/AdditionalRoutingCapabilities.yaml also referencing routeAdvertisements when the field is not defined there. If it did fail, I wouldn't have known how to manage a field that needs to be enable when either of two features gates are enabled.

jcaamano · 2024-11-19T09:17:51Z

@JoelSpeed The nullable attribute helped but we need more help :/

Would you know why the promoted field additionalRoutingCapabilities is not added to the generated operator/v1/zz_generated.featuregated-crd-manifests/networks.operator.openshift.io/RouteAdvertisements.yaml? You can see how a test fails because of that here: https://prow.ci.openshift.org/view/gs/test-platform-results/pr-logs/pull/openshift_api/2087/pull-ci-openshift-api-master-verify-crd-schema/1856288451670839296
error in operator/v1/zz_generated.featuregated-crd-manifests/networks.operator.openshift.io/RouteAdvertisements.yaml: MustNotExceedCostBudget: ^.properties[spec]: Invalid value: apiextensions.ValidationRule{Rule:"(has(self.additionalRoutingCapabilities) && ('FRR' in self.additionalRoutingCapabilities.providers)) || !has(self.defaultNetwork) || !has(self.defaultNetwork.ovnKubernetesConfig) || !has(self.defaultNetwork.ovnKubernetesConfig.routeAdvertisements) || self.defaultNetwork.ovnKubernetesConfig.routeAdvertisements != 'Enabled'", Message:"Route advertisements cannot be Enabled if 'FRR' routing capability provider is not available", MessageExpression:"", Reason:(*apiextensions.FieldValueErrorReason)(nil), FieldPath:"", OptionalOldSelf:(*bool)(nil)}: compilation failed: ERROR: <input>:1:5: undefined field 'additionalRoutingCapabilities'
Strangely enough this isn't failing in HEAD where the validation is in operator/v1/zz_generated.featuregated-crd-manifests/networks.operator.openshift.io/AdditionalRoutingCapabilities.yaml also referencing routeAdvertisements when the field is not defined there. If it did fail, I wouldn't have known how to manage a field that needs to be enable when either of two features gates are enabled.

@deads2k you might know

fedepaol · 2024-11-20T10:22:46Z

/retest

JoelSpeed · 2024-11-21T10:50:03Z

operator/v1/types_network.go

 	// respective documentation and configuration options.
 	// +openshift:enable:FeatureGate=AdditionalRoutingCapabilities
 	// +optional
+	// +nullable


I did some more research and I think this is not the correct approach, please remove

I will override the no new required fields, as I think it is erroneous

JoelSpeed · 2024-11-21T10:54:37Z

Can you please link a sippy link in the PR description that shows us the results of your periodic that you added?

Also, can we retitle to use the word promote, rather than remove. Removing the gate is a later step, and I'd like to remove the ambiguity.

@JoelSpeed The nullable attribute helped but we need more help :/

Would you know why the promoted field additionalRoutingCapabilities is not added to the generated operator/v1/zz_generated.featuregated-crd-manifests/networks.operator.openshift.io/RouteAdvertisements.yaml? You can see how a test fails because of that here: https://prow.ci.openshift.org/view/gs/test-platform-results/pr-logs/pull/openshift_api/2087/pull-ci-openshift-api-master-verify-crd-schema/1856288451670839296
error in operator/v1/zz_generated.featuregated-crd-manifests/networks.operator.openshift.io/RouteAdvertisements.yaml: MustNotExceedCostBudget: ^.properties[spec]: Invalid value: apiextensions.ValidationRule{Rule:"(has(self.additionalRoutingCapabilities) && ('FRR' in self.additionalRoutingCapabilities.providers)) || !has(self.defaultNetwork) || !has(self.defaultNetwork.ovnKubernetesConfig) || !has(self.defaultNetwork.ovnKubernetesConfig.routeAdvertisements) || self.defaultNetwork.ovnKubernetesConfig.routeAdvertisements != 'Enabled'", Message:"Route advertisements cannot be Enabled if 'FRR' routing capability provider is not available", MessageExpression:"", Reason:(*apiextensions.FieldValueErrorReason)(nil), FieldPath:"", OptionalOldSelf:(*bool)(nil)}: compilation failed: ERROR: <input>:1:5: undefined field 'additionalRoutingCapabilities'
Strangely enough this isn't failing in HEAD where the validation is in operator/v1/zz_generated.featuregated-crd-manifests/networks.operator.openshift.io/AdditionalRoutingCapabilities.yaml also referencing routeAdvertisements when the field is not defined there. If it did fail, I wouldn't have known how to manage a field that needs to be enable when either of two features gates are enabled.

Your rule needs both the routeAdvertisements and additionalRoutingCapabilities fields, and so the rule must be gated on both, rather than featureGate=<gate>, try requiredFeatureGate=<gate>,<gate>. I believe this should mean the validation only applies when both gates are enabled within a feature set, and should resolve the issue you're seeing

JoelSpeed · 2024-11-21T15:00:59Z

operator/v1/types_network.go

 // NetworkSpec is the top-level network configuration object.
 // +kubebuilder:validation:XValidation:rule="!has(self.defaultNetwork) || !has(self.defaultNetwork.ovnKubernetesConfig) || !has(self.defaultNetwork.ovnKubernetesConfig.gatewayConfig) || !has(self.defaultNetwork.ovnKubernetesConfig.gatewayConfig.ipForwarding) || self.defaultNetwork.ovnKubernetesConfig.gatewayConfig.ipForwarding == oldSelf.defaultNetwork.ovnKubernetesConfig.gatewayConfig.ipForwarding || self.defaultNetwork.ovnKubernetesConfig.gatewayConfig.ipForwarding == 'Restricted' || self.defaultNetwork.ovnKubernetesConfig.gatewayConfig.ipForwarding == 'Global'",message="invalid value for IPForwarding, valid values are 'Restricted' or 'Global'"
-// +openshift:validation:FeatureGateAwareXValidation:featureGate=AdditionalRoutingCapabilities,rule="(has(self.additionalRoutingCapabilities) && ('FRR' in self.additionalRoutingCapabilities.providers)) || !has(self.defaultNetwork) || !has(self.defaultNetwork.ovnKubernetesConfig) || !has(self.defaultNetwork.ovnKubernetesConfig.routeAdvertisements) || self.defaultNetwork.ovnKubernetesConfig.routeAdvertisements != 'Enabled'",message="Route advertisements cannot be Enabled if 'FRR' routing capability provider is not available"
+// +openshift:validation:FeatureGateAwareXValidation:featureGate=RouteAdvertisements,requiredFeatureGate=RouteAdvertisements;AdditionalRoutingCapabilities,rule="(has(self.additionalRoutingCapabilities) && ('FRR' in self.additionalRoutingCapabilities.providers)) || !has(self.defaultNetwork) || !has(self.defaultNetwork.ovnKubernetesConfig) || !has(self.defaultNetwork.ovnKubernetesConfig.routeAdvertisements) || self.defaultNetwork.ovnKubernetesConfig.routeAdvertisements != 'Enabled'",message="Route advertisements cannot be Enabled if 'FRR' routing capability provider is not available"


OK this isn't working, all this has done is remove the validation from everywhere, damn

JoelSpeed · 2024-11-22T10:55:19Z

operator/v1/types_network.go

 // NetworkSpec is the top-level network configuration object.
 // +kubebuilder:validation:XValidation:rule="!has(self.defaultNetwork) || !has(self.defaultNetwork.ovnKubernetesConfig) || !has(self.defaultNetwork.ovnKubernetesConfig.gatewayConfig) || !has(self.defaultNetwork.ovnKubernetesConfig.gatewayConfig.ipForwarding) || self.defaultNetwork.ovnKubernetesConfig.gatewayConfig.ipForwarding == oldSelf.defaultNetwork.ovnKubernetesConfig.gatewayConfig.ipForwarding || self.defaultNetwork.ovnKubernetesConfig.gatewayConfig.ipForwarding == 'Restricted' || self.defaultNetwork.ovnKubernetesConfig.gatewayConfig.ipForwarding == 'Global'",message="invalid value for IPForwarding, valid values are 'Restricted' or 'Global'"
-// +openshift:validation:FeatureGateAwareXValidation:featureGate=AdditionalRoutingCapabilities,rule="(has(self.additionalRoutingCapabilities) && ('FRR' in self.additionalRoutingCapabilities.providers)) || !has(self.defaultNetwork) || !has(self.defaultNetwork.ovnKubernetesConfig) || !has(self.defaultNetwork.ovnKubernetesConfig.routeAdvertisements) || self.defaultNetwork.ovnKubernetesConfig.routeAdvertisements != 'Enabled'",message="Route advertisements cannot be Enabled if 'FRR' routing capability provider is not available"
+// +openshift:validation:FeatureGateAwareXValidation:featureGate=RouteAdvertisements,requiredFeatureGate=RouteAdvertisements;AdditionalRoutingCapabilities,rule="(has(self.additionalRoutingCapabilities) && ('FRR' in self.additionalRoutingCapabilities.providers)) || !has(self.defaultNetwork) || !has(self.defaultNetwork.ovnKubernetesConfig) || !has(self.defaultNetwork.ovnKubernetesConfig.routeAdvertisements) || self.defaultNetwork.ovnKubernetesConfig.routeAdvertisements != 'Enabled'",message="Route advertisements cannot be Enabled if 'FRR' routing capability provider is not available"


Suggested change

// +openshift:validation:FeatureGateAwareXValidation:featureGate=RouteAdvertisements,requiredFeatureGate=RouteAdvertisements;AdditionalRoutingCapabilities,rule="(has(self.additionalRoutingCapabilities) && ('FRR' in self.additionalRoutingCapabilities.providers)) || !has(self.defaultNetwork) || !has(self.defaultNetwork.ovnKubernetesConfig) || !has(self.defaultNetwork.ovnKubernetesConfig.routeAdvertisements) || self.defaultNetwork.ovnKubernetesConfig.routeAdvertisements != 'Enabled'",message="Route advertisements cannot be Enabled if 'FRR' routing capability provider is not available"

// +openshift:validation:FeatureGateAwareXValidation:featureGate=RouteAdvertisements,rule="(has(self.additionalRoutingCapabilities) && ('FRR' in self.additionalRoutingCapabilities.providers)) || !has(self.defaultNetwork) || !has(self.defaultNetwork.ovnKubernetesConfig) || !has(self.defaultNetwork.ovnKubernetesConfig.routeAdvertisements) || self.defaultNetwork.ovnKubernetesConfig.routeAdvertisements != 'Enabled'",message="Route advertisements cannot be Enabled if 'FRR' routing capability provider is not available"

… gate Promoting the feature gate as the deployed daemonset is being used by metallb and covered by MetalLB tests. Signed-off-by: Federico Paolinelli <fpaoline@redhat.com>

JoelSpeed · 2024-11-25T10:32:32Z

/override ci/prow/verify-crd-schema

The new required field identified is added inside a parent optional field, so I will allow this as it's not actually a new required field and is a compatible change.

The issue being reported in the gated CRDs is an unfortunate side effect of checking CEL validations in unmerged CRDs, since the issue doesn't present in any of the merged CRDs (the ones we actually install), I'm going to override this for now. Will look into excluding these checks for unmerged CRDs

@fedepaol Next up is the sippy results to show we historical pass rates of the E2Es taht you've got set up, once we have those, we should be good to override the verify too and get this merged

openshift-ci · 2024-11-25T10:33:13Z

@JoelSpeed: Overrode contexts on behalf of JoelSpeed: ci/prow/verify-crd-schema

In response to this:

/override ci/prow/verify-crd-schema

The new required field identified is added inside a parent optional field, so I will allow this as it's not actually a new required field and is a compatible change.

The issue being reported in the gated CRDs is an unfortunate side effect of checking CEL validations in unmerged CRDs, since the issue doesn't present in any of the merged CRDs (the ones we actually install), I'm going to override this for now. Will look into excluding these checks for unmerged CRDs

@fedepaol Next up is the sippy results to show we historical pass rates of the E2Es taht you've got set up, once we have those, we should be good to override the verify too and get this merged

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.

fedepaol · 2024-12-04T09:03:35Z

Here are the sippy results: https://sippy.dptools.openshift.org/sippy-ng/jobs/4.18/analysis?filters=%7B%22items%22%3A%5B%7B%22columnField%22%3A%22name%22%2C%22operatorValue%22%3A%22equals%22%2C%22value%22%3A%22periodic-ci-openshift-frr-release-4.18-periodics-frrk8s-e2e-metal-cno-periodic%22%7D%5D%7D with 11 greens (plus all the pasts we have from before adding them to sippy)

fedepaol · 2024-12-04T14:32:10Z

@JoelSpeed here's our 4.19 greens too https://sippy.dptools.openshift.org/sippy-ng/jobs/4.19/analysis?filters=%7B%22items%22%3A%5B%7B%22columnField%22%3A%22name%22%2C%22operatorValue%22%3A%22equals%22%2C%22value%22%3A%22periodic-ci-openshift-frr-release-4.19-periodics-frrk8s-e2e-metal-cno-periodic%22%7D%5D%7D

🎄 🎄 🎄 🎄

JoelSpeed · 2024-12-05T10:16:23Z

/retest

JoelSpeed · 2024-12-05T10:19:05Z

/lgtm

openshift-ci · 2024-12-05T10:19:35Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: fedepaol, JoelSpeed

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:

~~OWNERS~~ [JoelSpeed]

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

JoelSpeed · 2024-12-05T11:16:17Z

/override ci/prow/verify

This feature doesn't get tested in the core origin tests, but https://sippy.dptools.openshift.org/sippy-ng/jobs/4.19/analysis?filters=%7B%22items%22%3A%5B%7B%22columnField%22%3A%22name%22%2C%22operatorValue%22%3A%22equals%22%2C%22value%22%3A%22periodic-ci-openshift-frr-release-4.19-periodics-frrk8s-e2e-metal-cno-periodic%22%7D%5D%7D shows the periodics relating to this feature are green

openshift-ci-robot · 2024-12-05T11:18:45Z

/retest-required

Remaining retests: 0 against base HEAD c1fdeb0 and 2 for PR HEAD 7f92859 in total

openshift-ci · 2024-12-05T11:21:02Z

@JoelSpeed: Overrode contexts on behalf of JoelSpeed: ci/prow/verify

In response to this:

/override ci/prow/verify

This feature doesn't get tested in the core origin tests, but https://sippy.dptools.openshift.org/sippy-ng/jobs/4.19/analysis?filters=%7B%22items%22%3A%5B%7B%22columnField%22%3A%22name%22%2C%22operatorValue%22%3A%22equals%22%2C%22value%22%3A%22periodic-ci-openshift-frr-release-4.19-periodics-frrk8s-e2e-metal-cno-periodic%22%7D%5D%7D shows the periodics relating to this feature are green

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.

JoelSpeed · 2024-12-05T15:13:57Z

/override ci/prow/verify
/test e2e-aws-serial-techpreview

openshift-ci · 2024-12-05T15:20:43Z

@JoelSpeed: Overrode contexts on behalf of JoelSpeed: ci/prow/verify

In response to this:

/override ci/prow/verify
/test e2e-aws-serial-techpreview

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.

openshift-ci-robot · 2024-12-06T01:14:57Z

/retest-required

Remaining retests: 0 against base HEAD c1fdeb0 and 2 for PR HEAD 7f92859 in total

openshift-ci-robot · 2024-12-06T08:21:18Z

/retest-required

Remaining retests: 0 against base HEAD c1fdeb0 and 2 for PR HEAD 7f92859 in total

JoelSpeed · 2024-12-06T08:58:20Z

/override ci/prow/verify

openshift-ci · 2024-12-06T08:58:39Z

@JoelSpeed: Overrode contexts on behalf of JoelSpeed: ci/prow/verify

In response to this:

/override ci/prow/verify

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.

JoelSpeed · 2024-12-06T08:59:02Z

/override ci/prow/verify-crd-schema

openshift-ci · 2024-12-06T08:59:22Z

@JoelSpeed: Overrode contexts on behalf of JoelSpeed: ci/prow/verify-crd-schema

In response to this:

/override ci/prow/verify-crd-schema

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.

openshift-ci-robot · 2024-12-06T11:24:33Z

/retest-required

Remaining retests: 0 against base HEAD e8315e5 and 1 for PR HEAD 7f92859 in total

openshift-ci · 2024-12-06T12:59:53Z

@fedepaol: 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.

openshift-bot · 2024-12-06T22:14:47Z

[ART PR BUILD NOTIFIER]

Distgit: ose-cluster-config-api
This PR has been included in build ose-cluster-config-api-container-v4.19.0-202412061937.p0.g831aaaf.assembly.stream.el9.
All builds following this will include this PR.

openshift-ci bot added the size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. label Nov 6, 2024

openshift-ci bot requested review from deads2k and sjenning November 6, 2024 16:03

fedepaol force-pushed the removeadvancedroutingfeaturegate branch 2 times, most recently from 8182d27 to 0f21499 Compare November 6, 2024 18:56

openshift-ci bot added size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Nov 6, 2024

fedepaol force-pushed the removeadvancedroutingfeaturegate branch from 0f21499 to 76c7a6d Compare November 11, 2024 11:01

fedepaol force-pushed the removeadvancedroutingfeaturegate branch 4 times, most recently from 5d782a3 to 55839fb Compare November 12, 2024 13:50

fedepaol force-pushed the removeadvancedroutingfeaturegate branch from 4b0817f to cf06c80 Compare November 19, 2024 17:24

JoelSpeed reviewed Nov 21, 2024

View reviewed changes

fedepaol force-pushed the removeadvancedroutingfeaturegate branch from cf06c80 to 38852c8 Compare November 21, 2024 11:39

fedepaol changed the title ~~ClusterNetworkOperator API: remove additionalRoutingCapabilities gate~~ ClusterNetworkOperator API: promote the additionalRoutingCapabilities gate Nov 21, 2024

JoelSpeed reviewed Nov 21, 2024

View reviewed changes

JoelSpeed reviewed Nov 22, 2024

View reviewed changes

ClusterNetworkOperator API: promote the additionalRoutingCapabilities…

7f92859

… gate Promoting the feature gate as the deployed daemonset is being used by metallb and covered by MetalLB tests. Signed-off-by: Federico Paolinelli <fpaoline@redhat.com>

fedepaol force-pushed the removeadvancedroutingfeaturegate branch from 38852c8 to 7f92859 Compare November 22, 2024 11:47

openshift-ci bot assigned JoelSpeed Dec 5, 2024

openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Dec 5, 2024

openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Dec 5, 2024

openshift-merge-bot bot merged commit 831aaaf into openshift:master Dec 6, 2024
21 checks passed

fedepaol mentioned this pull request Dec 6, 2024

OCPBUGS-45888: ClusterNetworkOperator API: promote the additionalRoutingCapabilities flag to default #2119

Closed

ClusterNetworkOperator API: promote the additionalRoutingCapabilities gate #2087

ClusterNetworkOperator API: promote the additionalRoutingCapabilities gate #2087

Uh oh!

Conversation

fedepaol commented Nov 6, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

openshift-ci bot commented Nov 6, 2024

Uh oh!

fedepaol commented Nov 6, 2024

Uh oh!

jcaamano commented Nov 7, 2024

Uh oh!

evgenLevin commented Nov 7, 2024

Uh oh!

JoelSpeed commented Nov 9, 2024

Uh oh!

JoelSpeed commented Nov 9, 2024

Uh oh!

fedepaol commented Nov 11, 2024

Uh oh!

jcaamano commented Nov 11, 2024

Uh oh!

jcaamano commented Nov 12, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jcaamano commented Nov 19, 2024

Uh oh!

fedepaol commented Nov 20, 2024

Uh oh!

JoelSpeed Nov 21, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

fedepaol Nov 21, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

JoelSpeed commented Nov 21, 2024

Uh oh!

JoelSpeed Nov 21, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

JoelSpeed Nov 22, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

JoelSpeed commented Nov 25, 2024

Uh oh!

openshift-ci bot commented Nov 25, 2024

Uh oh!

fedepaol commented Dec 4, 2024

Uh oh!

fedepaol commented Dec 4, 2024

Uh oh!

JoelSpeed commented Dec 5, 2024

Uh oh!

JoelSpeed commented Dec 5, 2024

Uh oh!

openshift-ci bot commented Dec 5, 2024

Uh oh!

JoelSpeed commented Dec 5, 2024

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Dec 5, 2024

Uh oh!

openshift-ci bot commented Dec 5, 2024

Uh oh!

JoelSpeed commented Dec 5, 2024

Uh oh!

openshift-ci bot commented Dec 5, 2024

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Dec 6, 2024

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Dec 6, 2024

Uh oh!

JoelSpeed commented Dec 6, 2024

Uh oh!

openshift-ci bot commented Dec 6, 2024

Uh oh!

JoelSpeed commented Dec 6, 2024

Uh oh!

openshift-ci bot commented Dec 6, 2024

Uh oh!

fedepaol commented Nov 6, 2024 •

edited

Loading

jcaamano commented Nov 12, 2024 •

edited

Loading