[release-4.18] OCPBUGS-66051: Remove empty status field from generated IDMS/ITMS files

[openshift-cherrypick-robot]

This is an automated cherry-pick of #1318

/assign openshift-cherrypick-robot

[openshift-ci-robot]

@openshift-cherrypick-robot: Jira Issue OCPBUGS-65968 has been cloned as Jira Issue OCPBUGS-66051. Will retitle bug to link to clone.
/retitle [release-4.18] OCPBUGS-66051: Remove empty status field from generated IDMS/ITMS files

In response to this:

This is an automated cherry-pick of #1318

/assign openshift-cherrypick-robot

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]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: openshift-cherrypick-robot
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign r4f4 for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[openshift-ci-robot]

@openshift-cherrypick-robot: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-66051, which is invalid:

• expected dependent Jira Issue OCPBUGS-65968 to be in one of the following states: VERIFIED, RELEASE PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA), CLOSED (CURRENT RELEASE), CLOSED (DONE), CLOSED (DONE-ERRATA), but it is MODIFIED instead

Comment /jira refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Jira bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

In response to this:

This is an automated cherry-pick of #1318

/assign openshift-cherrypick-robot

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]

@openshift-cherrypick-robot: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name	Commit	Details	Required	Rerun command
ci/prow/e2e	04792b5	link	true	/test e2e
ci/prow/unit	04792b5	link	true	/test unit

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.

[aguidirh]

/jira refresh

[openshift-ci-robot]

@aguidirh: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-66051, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state.

7 validation(s) were run on this bug

• bug is open, matching expected state (open)
• bug target version (4.18.z) matches configured target version for branch (4.18.z)
• bug is in the state New, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)
• release note text is set and does not match the template
• dependent bug Jira Issue OCPBUGS-65968 is in the state Verified, which is one of the valid states (VERIFIED, RELEASE PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA), CLOSED (CURRENT RELEASE), CLOSED (DONE), CLOSED (DONE-ERRATA))
• dependent Jira Issue OCPBUGS-65968 targets the "4.19.z" version, which is one of the valid target versions: 4.19.0, 4.19.z
• bug has dependents

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @nidangavali

In response to this:

/jira refresh

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.

[aguidirh]

Hi @dorzel,

The tests are failing because there is a missing parser package that was not back ported from PR #1098.

@r4f4 do you remember if there was any reason why we did not back ported it? It was months ago so I don't remember if it there was a reason or we simply forgot to backport.

[r4f4]

@r4f4 do you remember if there was any reason why we did not back ported it? It was months ago so I don't remember if it there was a reason or we simply forgot to backport.

Because it was just a refactor, not a bug fix.

[aguidirh]

I just added the parser package on PR #1320, when it merges @dorzel will need only to rebase this PR to fix the test issues.

@r4f4 could you please review ? I already added the backport-risk-assessed label.

[r4f4]

I just added the parser package on PR #1320, when it merges @dorzel will need only to rebase this PR to fix the test issues.

@r4f4 could you please review ? I already added the backport-risk-assessed label.

There is no need to do that. @dorzel can just unmarshal the contents with the json package in a new, manual cherry-pick PR. The parser package is just a convenient way to not duplicate those few lines of code everywhere.