-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 40
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
Separating metal-lb ip-address pool definition #235
Conversation
- This is needed for the oai exercise document.
/retest-required |
@arora-sagar I think that you have to rename the 001 bash scripts differently. Like |
@tliron I'll trigger another execution to confirm that it's not broken with the latest changes. /test e2e-free5gc-fedora-34 |
@electrocucaracha I don't understand the reason now for the failure. It failed once that is okay but now I tested manually the scripts and I don't get the error because of the networking script. Earlier I had cluster section missing
But when I added it the run still showed me the same error as the previous commit. Can you help me understand this? |
/retest |
/approve |
/lgtm |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: electrocucaracha, radoslawc 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:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
/retest |
* Separating metal-lb ip-address pool definition - This is needed for the oai exercise document. * Renaming the infra tests * renaming the script name for tests * Adding back cluster definition in infra script
What type of PR is this?
What this PR does / why we need it:
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes # Currently in the exercise document for OAI, there is no method to define metal-lb ip-address pool for workload clusters. In R2 even workload clusters use metal lb as NRF exposes its service via Metal LB for UPF to register.
Special notes for your reviewer:
Breaking 001-infra.sh in two parts was a easier choice than renaming all the scripts.
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: