Skip to content

Forward porting of azure work to master - #8257

Merged
sdodson merged 3 commits into
openshift:masterfrom
kwoodson:azure_forward
May 9, 2018
Merged

Forward porting of azure work to master#8257
sdodson merged 3 commits into
openshift:masterfrom
kwoodson:azure_forward

Conversation

@kwoodson

@kwoodson kwoodson commented May 3, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This is the forward port of the Azure work that was merged into the 3.9 branch. This work encompasses the following:

  • azure owners file
  • base image building
  • node image building
  • persisting vm disks to storage blobs
  • Soon to be, image publishing from Adding azure image publishing capability. #8188
  • container enhancements and build enhancements to include azure as entrypoint
  • launch.yml that will deploy azure cluster
  • deprovisioning script to remove resource group

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. label May 3, 2018

- name: setup systemd units
import_role:
name: openshift_master

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is not needed and will be removed. It is however used in the 3.9 branch. @jim-minter, should I remove this in this cherry-pick or should I add a follow on commit to remove, or should we clean up in subsequent PR since this will be the work required to bring up masters on 3.10?

This will update to roles/openshift_control_plane

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

remove it in the cherry-pick in this PR. If there are additions in subsequent PRs that's fine

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yeah, this will have to be removed for tox to pass

@kwoodson

kwoodson commented May 3, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@smarterclayton

This PR has the entrypoint-provider changes. Once this merges we will merge the release PR openshift/release#727

sslclientkey: /var/lib/yum/client-key.pem
enabled: yes

- name: rhel-server-7-ose-3.9

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

s/3.9/3.10 here and comment out the block?


CentOS:
# TODO: should be using a repo which only provides prerequisites
- name: openshift-origin39

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

s/39// this line and next

- verify API server

- name: verify API server
- name: Verify API Server

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

revert

@jim-minter

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

minor nits, otherwise looks fine to me. Once tests are passing I'm in favour of getting this in now and handling further changes required to the azure playbooks as follow-ups.

@kwoodson
kwoodson force-pushed the azure_forward branch 2 times, most recently from 316c18b to af3d652 Compare May 3, 2018 19:27
@kwoodson

kwoodson commented May 3, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@jim-minter, cleaned up and removed openshift_master artifacts.

@jim-minter

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@kwoodson lgtm!

@kwoodson

kwoodson commented May 3, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@sdodson, Ready when you are. This should introduce the owners file which will allow @jim-minter or myself to handle other PRs in the Azure playbooks area. Thanks

@sdodson

sdodson commented May 7, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

/lgtm
I've not verified any of the new azure functionality, just that I don't believe there's risk to existing functionality.

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label May 7, 2018
@sdodson

sdodson commented May 7, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

/approve

@openshift-ci-robot

Copy link
Copy Markdown

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: kwoodson, sdodson

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

The pull request process is described here

Details Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

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-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label May 7, 2018
@kwoodson

kwoodson commented May 8, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@sdodson, looks like we have a conflict while waiting. #8286

I'll go fix it.

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label May 8, 2018
@sdodson

sdodson commented May 8, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label May 8, 2018
@kwoodson

kwoodson commented May 8, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

/test gcp

@kwoodson

kwoodson commented May 8, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

/test system-containers

@kwoodson

kwoodson commented May 8, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@sdodson,

[Conformance][Area:Networking][Feature:Router] The HAProxy router converges when multiple routers are writing conflicting status [Suite:openshift/conformance/parallel] 1m9s

I'm pretty sure this is not related. This was passing the tests yesterday. I'll rerun again.

@kwoodson

kwoodson commented May 8, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

/retest

@kwoodson

kwoodson commented May 8, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@Kargakis, thanks for looking into this.

@kwoodson

kwoodson commented May 8, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

/retest

@openshift-ci-robot

openshift-ci-robot commented May 8, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@kwoodson: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun them all:

Test name Commit Details Rerun command
ci/openshift-jenkins/system-containers 316c18b link /test system-containers

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR.

Details

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/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

@kwoodson

kwoodson commented May 9, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@sdodson, any recommendations here? This does modify the image/installer/Dockerfileand the entrypoint-. Those don't appear to be the problem.

@0xmichalis

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

The first test failure is just a stale result - system-containers does not run automatically anymore and does not report status in github.

The second test failure seems to be flakying a lot in the merge queue (saw it in other PRs too) so I opened the following bugzilla: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1576344

/retest

@sdodson
sdodson merged commit 9cd66e9 into openshift:master May 9, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants