-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 26
OCPCLOUD-3320: Use new manifests-gen #259
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
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -39,5 +39,10 @@ ipam-manifests: $(KUSTOMIZE) | |
| .PHONY: ocp-manifests | ||
| ocp-manifests: ipam-manifests $(MANIFESTS_GEN) | $(RELEASE_DIR) ## Builds openshift specific manifests | ||
| # Generate provider manifests. | ||
| # TODO: load the provider-version dynamically at rebase time when this is invoked by the Rebase Bot during one of its lifecycle hooks. | ||
| $(MANIFESTS_GEN) --provider-name "cluster-api" --provider-type "CoreProvider" --provider-version "${PROVIDER_VERSION}" --base-path "../" --manifests-path "./manifests" --kustomize-dir="openshift" | ||
| $(MANIFESTS_GEN) -manifests-path "./capi-operator-manifests" -kustomize-dir="../openshift" \ | ||
| -name "cluster-api" \ | ||
| -attribute type="core" \ | ||
| -install-order=10 \ | ||
| -attribute version="${PROVIDER_VERSION}" \ | ||
| -self-image-ref registry.ci.openshift.org/openshift:cluster-capi-controllers \ | ||
| -protect-cluster-resource cluster | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. What would this flag accept for other types, e.g. AWSCluster? I'm surprised this is just
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. This is an override for the heuristic which was there before, but which seemed to be tripped up by most providers due to having more than one infracluster type. We could make this fully qualified. Is it worth respinning for it? It would be annoying to change later, so maybe. |
||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Have we considered writing multiple files rather than one enormous, unreviewable file?
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. This file is not primarily for review. It's for consumption by the installer, and one big file is easier to manage. Also, as the output of kustomize is a single KRM-formatted dooberry, we'd have to invent a scheme to split it on. We'd be adding complexity in the producer in order to create complexity for the consumer. In terms of reviewability, it's no more or less reviewable than the There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. It's a 25k line file? I would imagine that when we are regenerating files, it would be easier to review if you could see it touched a particular configmap vs some random lines in the midst of 25k I didn't like that the previous iteration was unreviewable either FWIW |
Large diffs are not rendered by default.
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,6 @@ | ||
| attributes: | ||
| type: core | ||
| version: v1.11.3 | ||
| installOrder: 10 | ||
| name: cluster-api | ||
| selfImageRef: registry.ci.openshift.org/openshift:cluster-capi-controllers |
This file was deleted.
This file was deleted.
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.
Why were we previously copying from the builder?
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.
No idea. It was unnecessary, though.