Add support for kubemark #220
Conversation
openshift-ci-robot
added
the
size/L
|
/retest |
2 similar comments
|
/retest |
|
/retest |
ingvagabund
force-pushed
the
add-support-for-kubemark
branch
from
44ae62f
to
b76f6a7
Compare
|
/retest |
config/0000_00_cluster-version-operator_01_clusteroperator.crd.yaml
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
|
||
| .PHONY: build-integration | ||
| build-integration: ## Build integration test binary | ||
| @echo -e "\033[32mBuilding integration test binary...\033[0m" | ||
| mkdir -p bin | ||
| $(DOCKER_CMD) go build $(GOGCFLAGS) -o bin/integration github.com/openshift/machine-api-operator/test/integration | ||
|
|
||
| .PHONY: deploy-kubemark | ||
| deploy-kubemark: | ||
| kustomize build config | kubectl apply -f - |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is kustomize necessary here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggesting to run it without the Makefile?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, I'm suggesting to not use kustomize. Not sure what it's doing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just taking all manifests and pumping them into a single stream. Running just one command to deploy all manifests at once.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe kubectl can do that too; just do kubectl create -f ./
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The kustomize is (among other things) changing default namespace and patching manifests. Something simple kubectl can not do.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
cluster-api, along with kubebuilder and so operator-sdk use kustomize. I'm in favour of using it here for manifest generation and customization
|
just a few nits, overall lgtm |
|
/approve |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: enxebre The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
openshift-ci-robot
added
the
approved
ingvagabund
force-pushed
the
add-support-for-kubemark
branch
from
b76f6a7
to
352d4f9
Compare
|
/test integration |
| fi | ||
|
|
||
| status=$(kubectl get node $node -o json | jq '.status.conditions[] | select(.type=="Ready") | .status' --raw-output) | ||
| if [ $status != "Unknown" ]; then |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could you invert it to increase readability?
if [ $status == "Unknown" ]; then
echo "Deleting node $node"
kubectl delete node $node
fi
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't see any improvement in readibility compared to the current implementation. Can you more elaborate on that?
ingvagabund
force-pushed
the
add-support-for-kubemark
branch
from
352d4f9
to
86d5e88
Compare
|
Just rebasing |
|
/lgtm |
|
/retest |
ingvagabund
force-pushed
the
add-support-for-kubemark
branch
from
86d5e88
to
32314fe
Compare
|
New changes are detected. LGTM label has been removed. |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
1 similar comment
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
| @@ -29,6 +29,8 @@ const ( | |||
| LibvirtProvider = Provider("libvirt") | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we should add this case into config_test
|
/retest |
ingvagabund
force-pushed
the
add-support-for-kubemark
branch
from
32314fe
to
86992f9
Compare
|
New changes are detected. LGTM label has been removed. |
openshift-ci-robot
added
size/XXL
|
Pulling openshift/cluster-api-actuator-pkg#36 to see more from the failing autoscaler scales out test. |
|
/test e2e-aws |
…when-placement-is-nil Check if placement is not nil before accessing AvailabilityZone field
Still hacky since there is nothing rending the kubemark RBAC rules right know and we still don't have our own kubemark version of cloud controller manager that would remove NotReady nodes.