Skip to content

OCPBUGS-63405: Backport fixes CRD upgrade-safety 4.19 #534

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
Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: release-4.19
Choose a base branch
from
Open

OCPBUGS-63405: Backport fixes CRD upgrade-safety 4.19 #534

wants to merge 1 commit into from
+574 −78

Conversation

@camilamacedo86
Copy link
Contributor

@camilamacedo86 camilamacedo86 commented Oct 22, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Manually cherry-pick of #527
(without deps bump)

@camilamacedo86
UPSTREAM: <carry>: Backport the fix without add the crddif dependency
01458d2 
Backport CRD upgrade-safety filtering and message tweaks from openshift/operator-controller#527 while keeping the existing in-repo validator stack (no crdify bump).
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Oct 22, 2025
@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Oct 22, 2025

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: camilamacedo86
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign oceanc80 for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

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

@camilamacedo86 camilamacedo86 changed the title WIP: Backport fixes CRD upgrade-safety WIP: Backport fixes CRD upgrade-safety 4.19 Oct 22, 2025
@camilamacedo86
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest-required

@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Oct 22, 2025

@camilamacedo86: 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.

@camilamacedo86 camilamacedo86 changed the title WIP: Backport fixes CRD upgrade-safety 4.19 OCPBUGS-63405: Backport fixes CRD upgrade-safety 4.19 Oct 22, 2025
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Oct 22, 2025
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added jira/severity-important Referenced Jira bug's severity is important for the branch this PR is targeting. jira/valid-reference Indicates that this PR references a valid Jira ticket of any type. jira/invalid-bug Indicates that a referenced Jira bug is invalid for the branch this PR is targeting. labels Oct 22, 2025
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@camilamacedo86: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-63405, which is invalid:

  • expected the bug to target either version "4.19." or "openshift-4.19.", but it targets "4.20.0" instead
  • expected dependent Jira Issue OCPBUGS-58462 to target a version in 4.20.0, 4.20.z, but it targets "4.21.0" instead

Comment /jira refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Jira bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

In response to this:

Manually cherry-pick of #527
(without deps bump)

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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

@camilamacedo86
Copy link
Contributor Author

/jira refresh

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@camilamacedo86: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-63405, which is invalid:

Comment /jira refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Jira bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

In response to this:

/jira refresh

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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

@camilamacedo86
Copy link
Contributor Author

/jira refresh

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added jira/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Jira bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. and removed jira/invalid-bug Indicates that a referenced Jira bug is invalid for the branch this PR is targeting. labels Oct 22, 2025
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@camilamacedo86: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-63405, which is valid.

7 validation(s) were run on this bug
  • bug is open, matching expected state (open)
  • bug target version (4.19.z) matches configured target version for branch (4.19.z)
  • bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)
  • release note type set to "Release Note Not Required"
  • dependent bug Jira Issue OCPBUGS-61890 is in the state Verified, which is one of the valid states (VERIFIED, RELEASE PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA), CLOSED (CURRENT RELEASE), CLOSED (DONE), CLOSED (DONE-ERRATA))
  • dependent Jira Issue OCPBUGS-61890 targets the "4.20.0" version, which is one of the valid target versions: 4.20.0, 4.20.z
  • bug has dependents

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @Xia-Zhao-rh

In response to this:

/jira refresh

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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot requested a review from Xia-Zhao-rh October 22, 2025 10:56
@tmshort
Copy link
Contributor

tmshort commented Oct 22, 2025

A bit concerned that this diverges greatly from #527, presumably becaue that one is based on sigs.k8s.io/crdify.
It would be good to have additional explanation as to why this is equivalent to #527

@Xia-Zhao-rh
Copy link

I tested this PR.
1, For https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-59730 in release-4.19. Test PASS

upgrade amq-broker-operator fro 7.12.2 to 7.12.3 success

xzha@xzha1-mac rhtac % oc get clusterextension                                 
NAME                       INSTALLED BUNDLE                                   VERSION                       INSTALLED   PROGRESSING   AGE
extension-amq-operator     amq-broker-operator.v7.12.3-opr-1-0.1730142550.p   7.12.3-opr-1+0.1730142550.p   True        True          35m

2, For OCPBUGS-63405, this issue does not exist in release-4.19. (with this PR, case OCP-75515 is also PASS).

@Xia-Zhao-rh
Copy link

For bug https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-60194
Still exist

- lastTransitionTime: "2025-10-23T11:01:50Z"
    message: |-
      validating upgrade for CRD "fulcios.rhtas.redhat.com" failed: CustomResourceDefinition fulcios.rhtas.redhat.com failed upgrade safety validation. "ChangeValidator" validation failed: version "v1alpha1", field "^.spec.ctlog": default: value changed from "{\"port\":80,\"prefix\":\"trusted-artifact-signer\"}" to "{\"prefix\":\"trusted-artifact-signer\"}"
      version "v1alpha1", field "^.spec.ctlog.port": default: value "80" removed
      version "v1alpha1", field "^.spec.externalAccess.routeSelectorLabels" has unknown change, refusing to determine that change is safe
      validating upgrade for CRD "timestampauthorities.rhtas.redhat.com" failed: CustomResourceDefinition timestampauthorities.rhtas.redhat.com failed upgrade safety validation. "ChangeValidator" validation failed: version "v1alpha1", field "^.spec.externalAccess.routeSelectorLabels" has unknown change, refusing to determine that change is safe
      validating upgrade for CRD "securesigns.rhtas.redhat.com" failed: CustomResourceDefinition securesigns.rhtas.redhat.com failed upgrade safety validation. "ChangeValidator" validation failed: version "v1alpha1", field "^.spec" has unknown change, refusing to determine that change is safe
      version "v1alpha1", field "^.spec.fulcio.ctlog": default: value changed from "{\"port\":80,\"prefix\":\"trusted-artifact-signer\"}" to "{\"prefix\":\"trusted-artifact-signer\"}"
      version "v1alpha1", field "^.spec.fulcio.ctlog.port": default: value "80" removed
      version "v1alpha1", field "^.spec.fulcio.externalAccess.routeSelectorLabels" has unknown change, refusing to determine that change is safe
      version "v1alpha1", field "^.spec.rekor.externalAccess.routeSelectorLabels" has unknown change, refusing to determine that change is safe
      version "v1alpha1", field "^.spec.tsa.externalAccess.routeSelectorLabels" has unknown change, refusing to determine that change is safe
      version "v1alpha1", field "^.spec.tuf.externalAccess.routeSelectorLabels" has unknown change, refusing to determine that change is safe
      validating upgrade for CRD "rekors.rhtas.redhat.com" failed: CustomResourceDefinition rekors.rhtas.redhat.com failed upgrade safety validation. "ChangeValidator" validation failed: version "v1alpha1", field "^" has unknown change, refusing to determine that change is safe
      version "v1alpha1", field "^.spec.externalAccess.routeSelectorLabels" has unknown change, refusing to determine that change is safe
      validating upgrade for CRD "tufs.rhtas.redhat.com" failed: CustomResourceDefinition tufs.rhtas.redhat.com failed upgrade safety validation. "ChangeValidator" validation failed: version "v1alpha1", field "^" has unknown change, refusing to determine that change is safe
      version "v1alpha1", field "^.spec.externalAccess.routeSelectorLabels" has unknown change, refusing to determine that change is safe for resolved bundle "rhtas-operator.v1.3.0" with version "1.3.0"
    observedGeneration: 2
    reason: Retrying
    status: "True"
    type: Progressing

@camilamacedo86
Copy link
Contributor Author

camilamacedo86 commented Oct 23, 2025 •
edited
Loading

/hold

@Xia-Zhao-rh

Thank you a lot for your help here
I will need more time, we might solve it with that as well: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OPRUN-4216

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Oct 23, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@anik120 anik120 Awaiting requested review from anik120

@LalatenduMohanty LalatenduMohanty Awaiting requested review from LalatenduMohanty

@Xia-Zhao-rh Xia-Zhao-rh Awaiting requested review from Xia-Zhao-rh

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. jira/severity-important Referenced Jira bug's severity is important for the branch this PR is targeting. jira/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Jira bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. jira/valid-reference Indicates that this PR references a valid Jira ticket of any type.

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@camilamacedo86 @openshift-ci-robot @tmshort @Xia-Zhao-rh