[release-4.6] Bug 1897575: server: Target the spec configuration if we have at least one node #2225

openshift-cherrypick-robot · 2020-11-13T13:52:28Z

This is an automated cherry-pick of #2035

/assign cgwalters

The CI cluster hit an issue where a pull secret was broken, and then we hit a deadlock because the MCO failed to drain nodes on the old config, because other nodes on the old config couldn't schedule the pod. It just generally makes sense for new nodes to use the new config; do so as long as at least one node has successfully joined the cluster at that config. This way we still avoid breaking the cluster (and scaleup) with a bad config.

openshift-ci-robot · 2020-11-13T13:52:40Z

@openshift-cherrypick-robot: Bugzilla bug 1873288 has been cloned as Bugzilla bug 1897575. Retitling PR to link against new bug.
/retitle [release-4.6] Bug 1897575: server: Target the spec configuration if we have at least one node

In response to this:

[release-4.6] Bug 1873288: server: Target the spec configuration if we have at least one node

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/test-infra repository.

openshift-ci-robot · 2020-11-13T13:53:00Z

@openshift-cherrypick-robot: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1897575, which is invalid:

expected dependent Bugzilla bug 1873288 to be in one of the following states: VERIFIED, RELEASE_PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA), but it is ON_QA instead

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

In response to this:

[release-4.6] Bug 1897575: server: Target the spec configuration if we have at least one node

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/test-infra repository.

cgwalters · 2020-11-13T13:53:27Z

Requested by CI team in #2035 (comment)

sinnykumari · 2020-11-16T11:17:33Z

/lgtm
/approve

openshift-ci-robot · 2020-11-16T11:17:54Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: openshift-cherrypick-robot, sinnykumari

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~~ [sinnykumari]

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

openshift-bot · 2020-11-16T19:15:08Z

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2020-11-16T20:07:09Z

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2020-11-16T21:38:09Z

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2020-11-17T01:01:12Z

/bugzilla refresh

Recalculating validity in case the underlying Bugzilla bug has changed.

openshift-ci-robot · 2020-11-17T01:01:15Z

@openshift-bot: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1897575, which is invalid:

expected dependent Bugzilla bug 1873288 to be in one of the following states: VERIFIED, RELEASE_PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA), but it is ON_QA instead

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

In response to this:

/bugzilla refresh

Recalculating validity in case the underlying Bugzilla bug has changed.

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/test-infra repository.

openshift-bot · 2020-11-17T10:25:14Z

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2020-11-17T10:38:11Z

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2020-11-17T11:56:11Z

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2020-11-17T14:06:13Z

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

kikisdeliveryservice · 2020-11-17T22:53:39Z

/bugzilla refresh

openshift-ci-robot · 2020-11-17T22:53:43Z

@kikisdeliveryservice: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1897575, which is invalid:

expected dependent Bugzilla bug 1873288 to be in one of the following states: VERIFIED, RELEASE_PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA), but it is ON_QA instead

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

In response to this:

/bugzilla 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 kubernetes/test-infra repository.

kikisdeliveryservice · 2020-11-17T22:54:08Z

bugzilla is still invalid, adding hold to stop retesting for now.

/hold

alvaroaleman · 2020-11-23T22:47:09Z

/bugzilla refresh

openshift-ci-robot · 2020-11-23T22:47:17Z

@alvaroaleman: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1897575, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state. The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

6 validation(s) were run on this bug

bug is open, matching expected state (open)
bug target release (4.6.z) matches configured target release for branch (4.6.z)
bug is in the state NEW, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, ON_DEV, POST, POST)
dependent bug Bugzilla bug 1873288 is in the state VERIFIED, which is one of the valid states (VERIFIED, RELEASE_PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA))
dependent Bugzilla bug 1873288 targets the "4.7.0" release, which is one of the valid target releases: 4.7.0
bug has dependents

In response to this:

/bugzilla 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 kubernetes/test-infra repository.

alvaroaleman · 2020-11-23T22:47:49Z

bugzilla is still invalid, adding hold to stop retesting for now.
/hold

Removing the hold, because the bugzilla became valid
/hold cancel

openshift-bot · 2020-11-23T23:16:40Z

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2020-11-24T01:39:36Z

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2020-11-24T04:02:37Z

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2020-11-24T09:14:39Z

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2020-11-24T11:37:38Z

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2020-11-24T14:13:40Z

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2020-11-24T15:05:39Z

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

stevekuznetsov · 2020-11-24T15:26:08Z

/hold

All the failures look identical:

 === RUN   TestKernelType
--- FAIL: TestKernelType (1217.33s)
    mcd_test.go:179: Created kerneltype-79fd9ef2-69b8-401e-96ae-e010677f3d1a
    utils_test.go:66: Pool infra has rendered config kerneltype-79fd9ef2-69b8-401e-96ae-e010677f3d1a with rendered-infra-b05d1fe452ba0a56c7e85e176b372ef0 (waited 6.039179721s)
    mcd_test.go:183: pool infra didn't report rendered-infra-b05d1fe452ba0a56c7e85e176b372ef0 to updated (waited 20m0.038889572s): timed out waiting for the condition

@cgwalters maybe this is broken on the backport?

kikisdeliveryservice · 2020-11-24T19:13:29Z

This is ready to merge.

/skip

alvaroaleman · 2020-11-24T19:14:17Z

/hold cancel

openshift-bot · 2020-11-25T10:23:00Z

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-bot · 2020-11-25T13:38:16Z

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-merge-robot · 2020-11-25T15:21:34Z

@openshift-cherrypick-robot: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests:

Test name	Commit	Details	Rerun command
ci/prow/okd-e2e-gcp-op	`9e77605`	link	`/test okd-e2e-gcp-op`

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/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

openshift-bot · 2020-11-25T15:48:29Z

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

openshift-ci-robot · 2020-11-25T17:26:21Z

@openshift-cherrypick-robot: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged:

openshift/machine-config-operator#2225

Bugzilla bug 1897575 has been moved to the MODIFIED state.

In response to this:

[release-4.6] Bug 1897575: server: Target the spec configuration if we have at least one node

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/test-infra repository.

openshift-ci-robot assigned cgwalters Nov 13, 2020

openshift-cherrypick-robot mentioned this pull request Nov 13, 2020

Bug 1873288: server: Target the spec configuration if we have at least one node #2035

Merged

openshift-ci-robot requested review from runcom and yuqi-zhang November 13, 2020 13:52

openshift-ci-robot changed the title ~~[release-4.6] Bug 1873288: server: Target the spec configuration if we have at least one node~~ [release-4.6] Bug 1897575: server: Target the spec configuration if we have at least one node Nov 13, 2020

openshift-ci-robot added bugzilla/severity-high Referenced Bugzilla bug's severity is high for the branch this PR is targeting. bugzilla/invalid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is invalid for the branch this PR is targeting. labels Nov 13, 2020

openshift-ci-robot assigned sinnykumari Nov 16, 2020

openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Nov 16, 2020

openshift-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Nov 16, 2020

openshift-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Nov 17, 2020

openshift-ci-robot added the bugzilla/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. label Nov 23, 2020

openshift-ci-robot removed the bugzilla/invalid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is invalid for the branch this PR is targeting. label Nov 23, 2020

openshift-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Nov 23, 2020

openshift-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Nov 24, 2020

openshift-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Nov 24, 2020

mfojtik added the cherry-pick-approved Indicates a cherry-pick PR into a release branch has been approved by the release branch manager. label Nov 25, 2020

openshift-merge-robot merged commit c54e8d1 into openshift:release-4.6 Nov 25, 2020

[release-4.6] Bug 1897575: server: Target the spec configuration if we have at least one node #2225

[release-4.6] Bug 1897575: server: Target the spec configuration if we have at least one node #2225

Conversation

openshift-cherrypick-robot commented Nov 13, 2020

openshift-ci-robot commented Nov 13, 2020

openshift-ci-robot commented Nov 13, 2020

cgwalters commented Nov 13, 2020

sinnykumari commented Nov 16, 2020

openshift-ci-robot commented Nov 16, 2020

openshift-bot commented Nov 16, 2020

openshift-bot commented Nov 16, 2020

openshift-bot commented Nov 16, 2020

openshift-bot commented Nov 17, 2020

openshift-ci-robot commented Nov 17, 2020

openshift-bot commented Nov 17, 2020

openshift-bot commented Nov 17, 2020

openshift-bot commented Nov 17, 2020

openshift-bot commented Nov 17, 2020

kikisdeliveryservice commented Nov 17, 2020

openshift-ci-robot commented Nov 17, 2020

kikisdeliveryservice commented Nov 17, 2020

alvaroaleman commented Nov 23, 2020

openshift-ci-robot commented Nov 23, 2020

alvaroaleman commented Nov 23, 2020

openshift-bot commented Nov 23, 2020

openshift-bot commented Nov 24, 2020

openshift-bot commented Nov 24, 2020

openshift-bot commented Nov 24, 2020

openshift-bot commented Nov 24, 2020

openshift-bot commented Nov 24, 2020

openshift-bot commented Nov 24, 2020

stevekuznetsov commented Nov 24, 2020

kikisdeliveryservice commented Nov 24, 2020

alvaroaleman commented Nov 24, 2020

openshift-bot commented Nov 25, 2020

openshift-bot commented Nov 25, 2020

openshift-merge-robot commented Nov 25, 2020 • edited Loading

openshift-bot commented Nov 25, 2020

openshift-ci-robot commented Nov 25, 2020

openshift-merge-robot commented Nov 25, 2020 •

edited

Loading