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

hack/build: Pin to RHCOS 47.280 and quay.io/openshift-release-dev/ocp-release:4.0.0-0.2 #1134

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

hack/build: Pin to RHCOS 47.280 and quay.io/openshift-release-dev/ocp-release:4.0.0-0.2 #1134

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

wking
Copy link
Member

@wking wking commented Jan 27, 2019

RHCOS 47.280 brings in, among other things, containers/podman#2106, which fixes a bug we see occasionally on the bootstrap machine.

Clayton pushed 4.0.0-0.nightly-2019-01-25-205123 to quay.io/openshift-release-dev/ocp-release:4.0.0-0.2.

Fixes #933.

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: wking

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

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Jan 27, 2019
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. label Jan 27, 2019
@wking
Copy link
Member Author

wking commented Jan 27, 2019

/hold

This PR is just for CI; we don't want to merge it to master.

@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 Jan 27, 2019
abhinavdahiya
abhinavdahiya reviewed Jan 27, 2019
View reviewed changes
CHANGELOG.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
CHANGELOG.md

### Fixed

- `openshift-install` has improved error handling for various invalid
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We can compact this item. Other items do not have previously section.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Other items do not have previously section.

I wanted to distinguish between "silently ignored" (which would have been even worse) and "silently errored out" (which was what we had).

CHANGELOG.md
invalid value is provided to --log-level (previously it exited 1 but
did not write to the standard error stream).
- The slow-input issues for the install-config wizard have been fixed.
- On AWS, `destroy cluster` fixed a bug in the 0.10.1 refactor which
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can we reword this to be crisper, fixed bug where un authorized errors would cause the destroy logic claim successful deletion and leak resources.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's just just unauthorized errors. You could conceivably also have hit the bug via rate limiting or a network hiccup.

CHANGELOG.md
* aws_lb.api_external: Error creating Application Load Balancer: InvalidSubnet: VPC vpc-0765c67bbc82a1b7d has no internet gateway
status code: 400, request id: 5a...d5

- On libvirt, the installer no longer holds the OS image in memory
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

All our fixes should be right direction 😋, I don't think that's required.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

All our fixes should be right direction 😋, I don't think that's required.

I didn't want to give the impression that we had fixed in-memory OS images altogether. I've reworded with (c434e7aed -> bb183d8). How does the new wording look to you?

wking added 2 commits January 27, 2019 09:18
@wking
CHANGELOG: Document changes since v0.10.1
8590beb 
Through f8a946e (Merge pull request openshift#1129 from
wking/aws-destroy-tag-search-error-handling, 2019-01-27).
@wking
hack/build: Pin to RHCOS 47.280 and quay.io/openshift-release-dev/ocp…
bb183d8 
…-release:4.0.0-0.2

RHCOS 47.280 brings in, among other things, [1], which fixes a bug we
see occasionally on the bootstrap machine.

Clayton pushed 4.0.0-0.nightly-2019-01-25-205123 to
quay.io/openshift-release-dev/ocp-release:4.0.0-0.2.

Renaming OPENSHIFT_INSTALL_RELEASE_IMAGE_OVERRIDE gets us CI testing
of the pinned release despite openshift/release@60007df2 (Use
RELEASE_IMAGE_LATEST for CVO payload, 2018-10-03,
openshift/release#1793).

Also comment out regions which this particular RHCOS build wasn't
pushed to, leaving only:

  $ curl -s https://releases-rhcos.svc.ci.openshift.org/storage/releases/maipo/47.280/meta.json | jq -r '.amis[] | .name'
  ap-northeast-1
  ap-northeast-2
  ap-south-1
  ap-southeast-1
  ap-southeast-2
  ca-central-1
  eu-central-1
  eu-west-1
  eu-west-2
  eu-west-3
  sa-east-1
  us-east-1
  us-east-2
  us-west-1
  us-west-2

I'd initially expected to export the pinning environment variables in
release.sh, but I've put them in build.sh here because our continuous
integration tests use build.sh directly and don't go through
release.sh.

[1]: containers/podman#2106
@wking wking force-pushed the version-0.11.0-pins branch from c434e7a to bb183d8 Compare January 27, 2019 17:19
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@wking: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun them all:

Test name Commit Details Rerun command
ci/prow/e2e-aws bb183d8 link /test e2e-aws

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR.

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.

@wking
Copy link
Member Author

wking commented Jan 27, 2019

e2e-aws:

Flaky tests:

[sig-apps] StatefulSet [k8s.io] Basic StatefulSet functionality [StatefulSetBasic] should implement legacy replacement when the update strategy is OnDelete [Suite:openshift/conformance/parallel] [Suite:k8s]

Failing tests:

[k8s.io] Pods should support pod readiness gates [NodeFeature:PodReadinessGate] [Suite:openshift/conformance/parallel] [Suite:k8s]
[sig-api-machinery] Servers with support for API chunking should support continue listing from the last key if the original version has been compacted away, though the list is inconsistent [Suite:openshift/conformance/parallel] [Suite:k8s]
[sig-scheduling] ResourceQuota [Feature:PodPriority] should verify ResourceQuota's multiple priority class scope (quota set to pod count: 2) against 2 pods with same priority classes. [Suite:openshift/conformance/parallel] [Suite:k8s]
[sig-scheduling] ResourceQuota [Feature:PodPriority] should verify ResourceQuota's priority class scope (cpu, memory quota set) against a pod with same priority class. [Suite:openshift/conformance/parallel] [Suite:k8s]
[sig-scheduling] ResourceQuota [Feature:PodPriority] should verify ResourceQuota's priority class scope (quota set to pod count: 1) against 2 pods with different priority class. [Suite:openshift/conformance/parallel] [Suite:k8s]
[sig-scheduling] ResourceQuota [Feature:PodPriority] should verify ResourceQuota's priority class scope (quota set to pod count: 1) against 2 pods with same priority class. [Suite:openshift/conformance/parallel] [Suite:k8s]
[sig-scheduling] ResourceQuota [Feature:PodPriority] should verify ResourceQuota's priority class scope (quota set to pod count: 1) against a pod with different priority class (ScopeSelectorOpExists). [Suite:openshift/conformance/parallel] [Suite:k8s]
[sig-scheduling] ResourceQuota [Feature:PodPriority] should verify ResourceQuota's priority class scope (quota set to pod count: 1) against a pod with different priority class (ScopeSelectorOpNotIn). [Suite:openshift/conformance/parallel] [Suite:k8s]
[sig-scheduling] ResourceQuota [Feature:PodPriority] should verify ResourceQuota's priority class scope (quota set to pod count: 1) against a pod with same priority class. [Suite:openshift/conformance/parallel] [Suite:k8s]
[sig-scheduling] ResourceQuota [Feature:ScopeSelectors] should verify ResourceQuota with best effort scope using scope-selectors. [Suite:openshift/conformance/parallel] [Suite:k8s]
[sig-scheduling] ResourceQuota [Feature:ScopeSelectors] should verify ResourceQuota with terminating scopes through scope selectors. [Suite:openshift/conformance/parallel] [Suite:k8s]
[sig-storage] Dynamic Provisioning DynamicProvisioner allowedTopologies should create persistent volume in the zone specified in allowedTopologies of storageclass [Suite:openshift/conformance/parallel] [Suite:k8s]

Maybe this pre-1.12-rebase update payload is never going to pass our current post-1.12-rebase e2e suite. I'm personally fine cutting this without it going green, since we're going to hand it to QE for sanity checking.

@wking
Copy link
Member Author

wking commented Jan 28, 2019

Tagged as v0.11.0.

@wking wking closed this Jan 28, 2019
@wking wking deleted the version-0.11.0-pins branch January 28, 2019 05:23
@wking wking mentioned this pull request Feb 5, 2019
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@abhinavdahiya abhinavdahiya abhinavdahiya left review comments

@russellb russellb Awaiting requested review from russellb

@staebler staebler Awaiting requested review from staebler

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

installer not completing : incorrect ocp default registry format registry@sha@sha
3 participants
@wking @openshift-ci-robot @abhinavdahiya