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.

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

Revert "Use DataPlaneService.DataSources" #850

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

SeanMooney
Copy link
Contributor

Reverts #846

this creates a depency cycle between install_yamls and the dataplane operator.

reverting this change is one way to possible break this other wise we will need to force merge

openstack-k8s-operators/dataplane-operator#920 and #845

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot requested review from abays and stuggi June 11, 2024 16:30
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Jun 11, 2024

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: SeanMooney
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign raukadah for approval. For more information see the Kubernetes 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

@SeanMooney
Copy link
Contributor Author

settign hold for now as i think force merging

openstack-k8s-operators/dataplane-operator#920 and #845

will likely be the better option but I'm waiting on ci results on

#845 to confirm that they two work correctly

value:
- configMapRef:
name: nova-extra-config
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

so the reason this is problematic is this si removing the the ssh-key and cell secreate as it s a direct replacement of the list.

so what ti might have to do instead of the revert is a patch to hanel that proerply which I'm going to work on as a third option.
then when we change ci results for all 3 we can decide how to proceed

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

im hoping we can proceed with #851 instead and i can abandon this if that works

@SeanMooney
Copy link
Contributor Author

#851 passed ci so ill close this in favor of that

@SeanMooney SeanMooney closed this Jun 11, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant