WIP: Add special handling for critical customer #301
Conversation
We do no longer post LimitedSupport if the target cluster is from a organization with the managed_critical_customer capability. Instead we redirect SRE to take additional steps for those clusters.
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: RaphaelBut 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
|
/hold for testing the ccam path |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
do-not-merge/hold
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #301 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 38.51% 37.87% -0.65%
==========================================
Files 20 20
Lines 1594 1621 +27
==========================================
Hits 614 614
- Misses 940 967 +27
Partials 40 40
|
| if err != nil { | ||
| return err | ||
| notes.AppendWarning("NetworkVerifier found unreachable targets, deadmanssnitch is blocked! \nUnreachable: \n%s", failureReason) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggestion: Clarify what this means for the SRE handling it. It might be obvious to us, but DMS being blocked might not automatically ring a bell to everyone.
Maybe something mentioning that DMS is blocked causing this alert and next steps to take?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nice catch. Did mindlessly copy this.
I think, it might be best to just remove the mention of DMS as its not relevant to the workflow here.
would look like this, wdyt?
🤖 Automated CHGM pre-investigation 🤖
✅ Customer did not stop nodes.
Unreachable:
nosnch.in:443
| @@ -224,6 +233,33 @@ func (c *SdkClient) PostLimitedSupportReason(limitedSupportReason *LimitedSuppor | |||
| return nil | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wonder if we can make this cleaner. An error is probably not the ideal way to convey an expected failure.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same :D Let me see...
Co-authored-by: typeid <github@typeid.org>
Co-authored-by: typeid <github@typeid.org>
|
@RaphaelBut: 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. |
|
Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity. Mark the issue as fresh by commenting If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /lifecycle stale |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
lifecycle/stale
openshift-merge-robot
added
the
needs-rebase
|
PR needs rebase. 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. |
|
Stale issues rot after 30d of inactivity. Mark the issue as fresh by commenting If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /lifecycle rotten |
openshift-ci
bot
added
lifecycle/rotten
We do no longer post LimitedSupport if the target cluster is from a organization with the managed_critical_customer capability. Instead we redirect SRE to take additional steps for those clusters.
See https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OSD-24126