NE-1807: Rebase to v2.8.2 #23
Conversation
* A few edits. * Update docs/deploy/subnet_discovery.md --------- Co-authored-by: Kishor Joshi <[email protected]>
…-sigs#3139) * generate manifest with service mutator and modify webhook * Added a flag to include or not include this ServiceMutatorWebhook * set flag's defualt value to true and modify README doc.
* Add docker-push-w-buildx make target * Update BASE_IMAGE Signed-off-by: Ivy Ostosh <[email protected]> --------- Signed-off-by: Ivy Ostosh <[email protected]>
…lancer-controller into abitrary-tags-for-nlb-sg
…aws-load-balancer-controller into abitrary-tags-for-nlb-sg
…Gates samples (kubernetes-sigs#3156) * chore(aws-load-balancer-controller): add all controllerConfig.featureGates samples * Update helm/aws-load-balancer-controller/values.yaml --------- Co-authored-by: Kishor Joshi <[email protected]>
…ureGates samples default values (kubernetes-sigs#3161)
The service mutator and ingressclassparams validator webhooks ignore the services and the ingressclassparams resources included in the controller manifest. The webhook service is of type ClusterIP and need not be mutated by the webhook. This change resolves the cyclic dependency between the service and the mutator webhook. In the long term we will use the `matchConditions` once `AdmissionWebhookMatchConditions` feature is GA. As for the `ingressclassparams`, the webhook might not be available during chart install/upgrade time causing the operation to fail. This is a short term fix to get backward compatible behavior.
* refactor backend SG provider * fix ExtractIngresses array append * make classifiedIngress type satisfy ObjectMetaAccessor * refactor backend SG provider apis
…3186) (kubernetes-sigs#3193) * Add support for RGT APIs with feature flag * revert change in iam policies and refactor tagging manager * list resrouces by arn in RGT * handle potential replication in returned RGT resources
alebedev87
force-pushed
the
rebase-2-8-2
branch
from
378cc27 to
3740227
Compare
The final cherry picks (with squashed commit messages as bullet points): |
|
@alebedev87: This pull request references NE-1807 which is a valid jira issue. Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the story to target the "4.18.0" version, but no target version was set. 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. |
|
@alebedev87: This pull request references NE-1807 which is a valid jira issue. Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the story to target the "4.18.0" version, but no target version was set. 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. |
|
@alebedev87: This pull request references NE-1807 which is a valid jira issue. Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the story to target the "4.18.0" version, but no target version was set. 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. |
The initial list from the PR description was just a direct order of commits I cherry picked (I don't remember squashing but it's a little fuzzy now). What I just did includes the commit messages of the squashed commits so it should be easy enough to reproduce the exact sequence.
I think neither is accurate in this case, we want to carry the vendor directory but with different contents. Right, it used to be
Yes, we'll do it in the operator. We already have a wehbook server with this PR there will be another one. Nothing will break without readiness probe, so we can do it later in the operator PR. |
… directory Include the `github.com/golang/mock/mockgen/model` package as an explicit dependency to support the mockgen utility. This change is necessary due to the rebasing to v2.8.2 and the downstream fork's reliance on the vendor directory for building the controller image in CI. Without this explicit inclusion, the package lookup fails with the error: "cannot find module providing package...import lookup disabled by -mod=vendor".
alebedev87
force-pushed
the
rebase-2-8-2
branch
from
3740227 to
03a729d
Compare
|
@alebedev87: This pull request references NE-1807 which is a valid jira issue. Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the story to target the "4.18.0" version, but no target version was set. 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. |
|
@alebedev87: This pull request references NE-1807 which is a valid jira issue. Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the story to target the "4.18.0" version, but no target version was set. 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 |
|
@alebedev87: all tests passed! 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. |
|
Thanks for the updates. Everything looks good to me. I haven't reviewed every single change with 2.8.2, but since we reviewed the important ones in the meeting, I feel pretty confident. I do recognize that this rebase is inherently risky, given the amount of changes coming in, but it's something we need to do regardless. /approve @alebedev87 do you want to wait for @Miciah's review? Remove as you wish. |
openshift-ci
bot
added
do-not-merge/hold
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: gcs278 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-ci
bot
removed
the
do-not-merge/hold
|
/label px-approved The epic has a dedicated docs task. |
openshift-ci
bot
added
px-approved
|
/label qe-approved |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
qe-approved
|
@alebedev87: This pull request references NE-1807 which is a valid jira issue. Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the story to target the "4.19.0" version, but no target version was set. 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. |
This PR rebases the openshift fork of aws-load-balancer-controller to v2.8.2 tag.
Doc with the analysis: link.
Rebase procedure which has been followed: link.
Initial list of cherry pick commits which were used as a source before squashes (from bottom up):
Squashed list of check picks with commit messages added as bullet points (from bottom up):
Also, the following carry patches have been added:
vendordir is used only downstream)mockgenutility has been added upstream, it needs this package as a dependency)Test PR: openshift/aws-load-balancer-operator#136.