Switch to use new CreateServiceReadyCondition #883
Conversation
|
@gibizer that would be the follow up we discussed in #522 (comment) |
|
This change depends on a change that failed to merge. Change openstack-k8s-operators/lib-common#572 is needed. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me. This does clarify the situation. I think the original meaning was that the openstack service is now exposed in k8s via a k8s service. But you are right that it does not mean it is exposed to the end user outside of k8s as that will require the creation of the route.
The current ExposeServiceReadyCondition can be confusing since it just reflects if the k8s service got created, but not the route to expose the public endpoint. This changes to a new CreateServiceReadyCondition to prevent this. Jira: OSPRH-4164 Depends-On: openstack-k8s-operators/lib-common#572 Signed-off-by: Martin Schuppert <[email protected]>
stuggi
force-pushed
the
createservice_condition
branch
from
1e99a4b to
c88313a
Compare
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: gibizer, stuggi 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 |
|
Build failed (check pipeline). Post https://softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/t/rdoproject.org/buildset/3f6cb8d2a1ed40ee85f47b720182df81 ✔️ openstack-meta-content-provider SUCCESS in 3h 50m 47s |
|
recheck |
openshift-merge-bot
bot
merged commit 447af09
into
openstack-k8s-operators:main
The current ExposeServiceReadyCondition can be confusing since it just reflects if the k8s service got created, but not the route to expose the public endpoint. This changes to a new CreateServiceReadyCondition to prevent this.
Depends-On: openstack-k8s-operators/lib-common#572
Jira: OSPRH-4164