OSDOCS#11775: Add missing step in 4.12 for replacing an unhealthy etcd member

[tmalove]

Version(s):
4.12

Issue:
OSDOCS-11775

Link to docs preview Updated 8/26/24

QE review:

• [x ] QE has approved this change.

Additional information:
This PR adds a new Step #3 in the procedure published in 4.13+, but not in 4.12.

[ocpdocs-previewbot]

🤖 Mon Aug 26 17:50:15 - Prow CI generated the docs preview:

https://80902--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/backup_and_restore/control_plane_backup_and_restore/replacing-unhealthy-etcd-member.html

[openshift-ci]

@tmalove: 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.

[tjungblu]

/lgtm

[tmalove]

Hi @geliu2016 will you review this PR to add a line in a procedure for 4.12? Thx.

[geliu2016]

/lgtm

[tmalove]

/label peer-review-needed

[mburke5678]

Other steps in the procedure use actual values over . Should we do the same here?

Suggested change

	$ oc delete node <node_name>
	$ oc delete node ip-10-0-131-183.ec2.internal

[mburke5678]

I see now that this module in all other supported versions uses <node_name>. If you make this change, I guess it would need to be CP'd to all including main or rebasing this PR against main.

[tmalove]

Thanks @mburke5678 To get this out asap, I will go ahead with this PR as is, then create a new PR to change 4.12+ to your suggestion.

[tmalove]

@tjungblu what are your thoughts on making the CLI change that includes the specific node name versus the variable? Thanks!

[tjungblu]

I have no particular preference for one over the other. If consistency is more important, feel free to pick the instance as an example

[tmalove]

/label merge-review-needed

[jldohmann]

lgtm! 🥳