OCPBUGS-53140: Validation for API and Ingress VIPs when using user-managed load balancer #9571
Conversation
dkokkino
commented
Mar 17, 2025
dkokkino
commented
- Currently when no API and Ingress VIPs are provided defaults are generated based on the available machine network CIDR.
- The change skips the above step if a user-managed load balancer is provided.
dkokkino
changed the title
openshift-ci-robot
added
jira/valid-reference
|
@dkokkino: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-53140, which is invalid:
Comment The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker. In response to this:
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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
|
/jira refresh |
|
@dkokkino: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-53140, which is invalid:
Comment In response to this:
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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
|
/jira refresh |
|
@dkokkino: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-53140, which is invalid:
Comment In response to this:
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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
|
/jira refresh |
|
@dkokkino: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-53140, which is invalid:
Comment In response to this:
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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
|
/retest |
2 similar comments
|
/retest |
|
/retest |
|
/jira refresh |
openshift-ci-robot
added
jira/valid-bug
|
@mandre: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-53140, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state. 3 validation(s) were run on this bug
No GitHub users were found matching the public email listed for the QA contact in Jira ([email protected]), skipping review request. In response to this:
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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
|
Trying again to trigger the jobs. I'm not sure why they didn't run the last 2 times I tried. /retest |
|
/retest |
|
/jira backport release-4.18,release-4.17,release-4.16,release-4.15,release-4.14 |
|
@dkokkino: The following backport issues have been created:
Queuing cherrypicks to the requested branches to be created after this PR merges: In response to this:
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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
|
@openshift-ci-robot: once the present PR merges, I will cherry-pick it on top of In response to this:
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-sigs/prow repository. |
|
/retest |
1 similar comment
|
/retest |
| p.APIVIPs = []string{vip.String()} | ||
|
|
||
| // When using user-managed loadbalancer do not generate default API and Ingress VIPs | ||
| if p.LoadBalancer.Type != configv1.LoadBalancerTypeUserManaged { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
p.LoadBalancer might be nil, we should guard against it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you for pointing this out. I have now added a guard to create a default openshift managed load balancer if one does not exist.
if p.LoadBalancer == nil {
p.LoadBalancer = &configv1.OpenStackPlatformLoadBalancer{
Type: configv1.LoadBalancerTypeOpenShiftManagedDefault,
}
}
|
/retest |
|
/label platform/openstack |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this is a good chance to add a unit test for these lbType cases. Some ideas can be:
- Default lbType + without specified VIPs
-> pass if some defaults can be figured out - Default lbType + without specified VIPs
-> fail if no defaults can be figured out - UserManaged lbType + without specified VIPs
-> fail
You can add them here, WDTY?
Edited: See #9571 (comment) but test cases are suggested as above.
- lb-default-stable: As a default load balancer is now being assigned when one is not provided this test needs to be updated to reflect that change - lb-unmanaged: I made changes to how the defaults are set. If the load balancer is user-managed VIPs will not automatically be assigned anymore. This change needs to be reflected in this test by adding a apiVIPs and ingressVIPs value to the install-config
|
@dkokkino: The following test failed, say
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-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
|
/approve |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: tthvo 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 |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
approved
openshift-merge-bot
bot
merged commit e83311b
into
openshift:main
|
@dkokkino: Jira Issue OCPBUGS-53140: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged: Jira Issue OCPBUGS-53140 has been moved to the MODIFIED state. In response to this:
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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
|
@openshift-ci-robot: new pull request created: #9618 In response to this:
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-sigs/prow repository. |
|
@openshift-ci-robot: new pull request created: #9619 In response to this:
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-sigs/prow repository. |
|
@openshift-ci-robot: new pull request created: #9620 In response to this:
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-sigs/prow repository. |
|
@openshift-ci-robot: new pull request created: #9621 In response to this:
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-sigs/prow repository. |
|
@openshift-ci-robot: new pull request created: #9622 In response to this:
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-sigs/prow repository. |
|
[ART PR BUILD NOTIFIER] Distgit: ose-installer-altinfra |
|
[ART PR BUILD NOTIFIER] Distgit: ose-installer-terraform-providers |
|
[ART PR BUILD NOTIFIER] Distgit: ose-baremetal-installer |
|
[ART PR BUILD NOTIFIER] Distgit: ose-installer-artifacts |
|
Fix included in accepted release 4.19.0-0.nightly-2025-04-02-065200 |
|
Fix included in accepted release 4.19.0-0.nightly-2025-04-02-170034 |
|
Fix included in accepted release 4.19.0-0.nightly-2025-04-04-023411 |
|
Fix included in accepted release 4.19.0-0.nightly-2025-04-04-170728 |
