Skip to content
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

Bug 1873353: bump Thanos to v0.15.0 #920

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Sep 9, 2020
Merged

Bug 1873353: bump Thanos to v0.15.0 #920

merged 3 commits into from
Sep 9, 2020

Conversation

simonpasquier
Copy link
Contributor

  • I added CHANGELOG entry for this change.
  • No user facing changes, so no entry in CHANGELOG was needed.

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added bugzilla/severity-medium Referenced Bugzilla bug's severity is medium 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 Sep 7, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@simonpasquier: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1873353, which is invalid:

  • expected the bug to be in one of the following states: NEW, ASSIGNED, ON_DEV, POST, POST, but it is MODIFIED 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:

Bug 1873353: bump Thanos to v0.15.0

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 openshift-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Sep 7, 2020
@simonpasquier
Copy link
Contributor Author

/bugzilla refresh

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@simonpasquier: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1873353, which is valid. The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug
  • bug is open, matching expected state (open)
  • bug target release (4.6.0) matches configured target release for branch (4.6.0)
  • bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, ON_DEV, POST, POST)

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.

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added bugzilla/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. and removed bugzilla/invalid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is invalid for the branch this PR is targeting. labels Sep 7, 2020
@paulfantom
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Sep 7, 2020
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

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

14 similar comments
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

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

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

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

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

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

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

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

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

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

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

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

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

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

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

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

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

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

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

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

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

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

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

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

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

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

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

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

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

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

4 similar comments
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

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

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

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

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

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

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

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

@s-urbaniak
Copy link
Contributor

This fails consistently for the following test:

FAIL: TestUserWorkloadMonitoring/assert_tenancy_model_is_enforced_for_rules

@s-urbaniak
Copy link
Contributor

It might be that we need to tweak the e2e test, as rule group deduplication now also considers the group name and file.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

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

1 similar comment
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

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

@s-urbaniak
Copy link
Contributor

@simonpasquier as assumed. Since we also consider the file name we should change our e2e tests here:

$ curl -s -k -H "Authorization: Bearer $(kubectl -n user-workload-test get secret $(kubectl -n user-workload-test get sa test-rules -o jsonpath='{.secrets[0].name}') -o jsonpath='{.data.token}' | base64 -d)" 'https://localhost:9093/api/v1/rules?namespace=user-workload-test'  | jq '.data.groups[] | {name: .name, file: .file}'
{
  "name": "example",
  "file": "/etc/prometheus/rules/prometheus-user-workload-rulefiles-0/user-workload-test-prometheus-example-rule-leaf.yaml"
}
{
  "name": "example",
  "file": "/etc/thanos/rules/thanos-ruler-user-workload-rulefiles-0/user-workload-test-prometheus-example-rule.yaml"
}

@s-urbaniak
Copy link
Contributor

/hold

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Sep 8, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Sep 8, 2020
@s-urbaniak
Copy link
Contributor

@simonpasquier PTAL, i modified the e2e test on top of this PR.

@s-urbaniak
Copy link
Contributor

/hold cancel

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Sep 8, 2020
@s-urbaniak
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

@s-urbaniak
Copy link
Contributor

/test e2e-upgrade

@paulfantom
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Sep 9, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: paulfantom, simonpasquier

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 [paulfantom,simonpasquier]

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

@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit eec0457 into openshift:master Sep 9, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@simonpasquier: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged:

Bugzilla bug 1873353 has been moved to the MODIFIED state.

In response to this:

Bug 1873353: bump Thanos to v0.15.0

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.

@simonpasquier simonpasquier deleted the bz-1873353 branch September 9, 2020 06:57
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@paulfantom paulfantom Awaiting requested review from paulfantom

@pgier pgier Awaiting requested review from pgier

Assignees

@paulfantom paulfantom

Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. bugzilla/severity-medium Referenced Bugzilla bug's severity is medium for the branch this PR is targeting. bugzilla/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
6 participants
@simonpasquier @openshift-ci-robot @paulfantom @openshift-bot @s-urbaniak @openshift-merge-robot