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

Don't reset deployment status when generation has not changed #1264

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

rabi
Copy link
Contributor

@rabi rabi commented Jan 15, 2025

This would be the case when we remove certain redundant fields during update.

This would be the case when we remove certain redundant fields
during update.
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Jan 15, 2025

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: rabi

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

Copy link

Build failed (check pipeline). Post recheck (without leading slash)
to rerun all jobs. Make sure the failure cause has been resolved before
you rerun jobs.

https://softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/t/rdoproject.org/buildset/3a39373a22194e3b9623378e32aebc33

openstack-k8s-operators-content-provider FAILURE in 10m 52s
⚠️ podified-multinode-edpm-deployment-crc SKIPPED Skipped due to failed job openstack-k8s-operators-content-provider
⚠️ cifmw-crc-podified-edpm-baremetal SKIPPED Skipped due to failed job openstack-k8s-operators-content-provider
⚠️ adoption-standalone-to-crc-ceph-provider SKIPPED Skipped due to failed job openstack-k8s-operators-content-provider
⚠️ openstack-operator-tempest-multinode SKIPPED Skipped due to failed job openstack-k8s-operators-content-provider

@rabi
Copy link
Contributor Author

rabi commented Jan 15, 2025

recheck

@rabi
Copy link
Contributor Author

rabi commented Jan 15, 2025

/retest

Copy link
Contributor

@bshephar bshephar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This would be ideal. If we can give ourselves some flexibility to minimize the footprint of our CRD fields without causing undue concern to users and unnecessary deployments. I think that would be valuable.

Just a small comment on where we perform the check for changed generations. Would avoid having to pass the variable around more than necessary.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants