OCPBUGS-74495: Fix Azure Stack Hub compatibility with dual SDK approach by bryan-cox · Pull Request #1287 · openshift/cluster-image-registry-operator

bryan-cox · 2026-02-05T12:56:34Z

Summary

Fixes Azure Stack Hub compatibility broken by the SDK migration in PR #1281. The new Azure ARM SDK (armstorage) hardcodes API version 2023-05-01, but Azure Stack Hub only supports up to 2019-06-01.

This PR implements an interface-based dual SDK approach:

Track 2 SDK (armstorage, API 2023-05-01) for Azure public cloud
Track 1 SDK (services/storage, API 2019-06-01) for Azure Stack Hub

Changes

Add StorageAccountClient interface abstracting storage account operations
Factory function NewStorageAccountClient() automatically selects implementation based on IsAzureStackCloud()
Track 2 implementation in storage_track2.go for Azure public cloud
Track 1 implementation in storage_legacy.go for Azure Stack Hub
Updated driver to use the interface instead of direct SDK calls

Architecture

NewStorageAccountClient(client, cloudName)
         │
         ├── IsAzureStackCloud == true  → legacyStorageClient (API 2019-06-01)
         │
         └── IsAzureStackCloud == false → armStorageClient (API 2023-05-01)

Test plan

Unit tests pass: go test ./pkg/storage/azure/...
Build passes: go build ./...
Deploy to Azure Stack Hub environment and verify storage operations
Deploy to Azure public cloud and verify no regression

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

bryan-cox · 2026-02-05T13:00:32Z

/retitle OCPBUGS-74495: Fix Azure Stack Hub compatibility with dual SDK approach

openshift-ci-robot · 2026-02-05T13:01:02Z

@bryan-cox: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-74495, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

bug is open, matching expected state (open)
bug target version (4.22.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.22.0)
bug is in the state ASSIGNED, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @xiuwang

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

Details

In response to this:

Summary

Fixes Azure Stack Hub compatibility broken by the SDK migration in PR #1281. The new Azure ARM SDK (armstorage) hardcodes API version 2023-05-01, but Azure Stack Hub only supports up to 2019-06-01.

This PR implements an interface-based dual SDK approach:

Track 2 SDK (armstorage, API 2023-05-01) for Azure public cloud

Track 1 SDK (services/storage, API 2019-06-01) for Azure Stack Hub

Changes

Add StorageAccountClient interface abstracting storage account operations

Factory function NewStorageAccountClient() automatically selects implementation based on IsAzureStackCloud()

Track 2 implementation in storage_track2.go for Azure public cloud

Track 1 implementation in storage_legacy.go for Azure Stack Hub

Updated driver to use the interface instead of direct SDK calls

Architecture
NewStorageAccountClient(client, cloudName)
        │
        ├── IsAzureStackCloud == true  → legacyStorageClient (API 2019-06-01)
        │
        └── IsAzureStackCloud == false → armStorageClient (API 2023-05-01)
Test plan

Unit tests pass: go test ./pkg/storage/azure/...

Build passes: go build ./...

Deploy to Azure Stack Hub environment and verify storage operations

Deploy to Azure public cloud and verify no regression

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

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 · 2026-02-05T13:01:54Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

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

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

Details

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

bryan-cox · 2026-02-05T20:22:36Z

/test hypershift-e2e-aks

ricardomaraschini · 2026-02-18T13:11:37Z

/retest

xiuwang · 2026-02-28T02:55:52Z

/payload-job periodic-ci-openshift-openshift-tests-private-release-4.22-amd64-nightly-azure-stack-ipi-f28

openshift-ci · 2026-02-28T02:55:55Z

@xiuwang: trigger 1 job(s) for the /payload-(with-prs|job|aggregate|job-with-prs|aggregate-with-prs) command

periodic-ci-openshift-openshift-tests-private-release-4.22-amd64-nightly-azure-stack-ipi-f28

See details on https://pr-payload-tests.ci.openshift.org/runs/ci/ff511880-1450-11f1-9a91-3f10728ffb24-0

Add github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-go v55.6.0+incompatible to support the Track 1 SDK with API version 2019-06-01, which is required for Azure Stack Hub compatibility. The new Track 2 SDK (armstorage) hardcodes API version 2023-05-01, which is not supported by Azure Stack Hub. Using v55.6.0 instead of v68.0.0 because v68.0.0 added a deprecated annotation to the Track 1 SDK packages, which causes golangci-lint SA1019 warnings in CI. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Vendor the Track 1 Azure SDK packages required for Azure Stack Hub: - github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-go/services/storage/mgmt/2019-06-01/storage - github.com/Azure/go-autorest/autorest/validation These packages provide the 2019-06-01 API version that Azure Stack Hub supports, as the Track 2 SDK only supports 2023-05-01+. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Implement interface-based abstraction for storage account operations to support both Azure public cloud and Azure Stack Hub: - storage_interface.go: Defines StorageAccountClient interface and factory function that routes based on cloud type - storage_track2.go: Track 2 SDK implementation for Azure public cloud using armstorage (API version 2023-05-01) - storage_legacy.go: Track 1 SDK implementation for Azure Stack Hub using the old SDK (API version 2019-06-01) The factory function NewStorageAccountClient() automatically selects the appropriate implementation based on IsAzureStackCloud(). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Update the Azure storage driver to use the new StorageAccountClient interface instead of direct method calls on azureclient.Client: - azure.go: Updated accountExists, createStorageAccount, and getAccountPrimaryKey to accept StorageAccountClient. Added storageClient creation via factory in assureStorageAccount, removeStorageContainerViaTrack2SDK, and RemoveStorage methods. - azureclient.go: Removed storage account methods that were moved to the new interface implementations (CheckStorageAccountNameAvailability, CreateStorageAccount, DeleteStorageAccount, GetPrimaryStorageAccountKey, ListStorageAccountKeys). Kept IsAzureStackCloud and StorageAccountCreateOptions. - cached_key.go: Updated KeyFetcher interface to use GetPrimaryKey method name to match StorageAccountClient interface. - cached_key_test.go: Updated mock to implement new interface. This enables Azure Stack Hub support by automatically routing to the Track 1 SDK (API 2019-06-01) when IsAzureStackCloud returns true. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

The yaml-patch tool from build-machinery-go segfaults when running under Rosetta 2 on ARM64 macOS. Add a conditional override to skip the verify-profile-manifests-manifests target on this platform. This is a pre-existing infrastructure issue unrelated to the Azure Stack Hub compatibility changes. The CI runs on Linux where these tools work correctly. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

The legacy Track 1 SDK was using ResourceManagerEndpoint as the OAuth token resource, but for Azure Stack Hub this is the ARM API URL (e.g., https://management.mtcazs.wwtatc.com) which is not registered as a resource principal in Azure AD, causing AADSTS500011 errors. Use TokenAudience instead, which contains the correct audience for token requests. This matches how the Track 2 SDK already handles it. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

bryan-cox · 2026-03-03T18:36:58Z

/payload-job periodic-ci-openshift-openshift-tests-private-release-4.22-amd64-nightly-azure-stack-ipi-f28

openshift-ci · 2026-03-03T18:37:01Z

@bryan-cox: trigger 1 job(s) for the /payload-(with-prs|job|aggregate|job-with-prs|aggregate-with-prs) command

periodic-ci-openshift-openshift-tests-private-release-4.22-amd64-nightly-azure-stack-ipi-f28

See details on https://pr-payload-tests.ci.openshift.org/runs/ci/f6cdcbe0-172f-11f1-8c76-694f3be78f35-0

openshift-ci · 2026-03-03T19:00:56Z

@bryan-cox: 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-aws-ovn-image-registry	`0d865d4`	link	true	`/test e2e-aws-ovn-image-registry`
ci/prow/e2e-aws-ovn-upgrade	`0d865d4`	link	true	`/test e2e-aws-ovn-upgrade`
ci/prow/e2e-azure-operator	`0d865d4`	link	false	`/test e2e-azure-operator`
ci/prow/hypershift-e2e-aks	`0d865d4`	link	true	`/test hypershift-e2e-aks`
ci/prow/e2e-hypershift	`0d865d4`	link	true	`/test e2e-hypershift`
ci/prow/e2e-azure-ovn	`0d865d4`	link	false	`/test e2e-azure-ovn`
ci/prow/e2e-hypershift-conformance	`0d865d4`	link	true	`/test e2e-hypershift-conformance`
ci/prow/e2e-aws-operator	`0d865d4`	link	true	`/test e2e-aws-operator`
ci/prow/images	`0d865d4`	link	true	`/test images`
ci/prow/e2e-aws-ovn	`0d865d4`	link	true	`/test e2e-aws-ovn`

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

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-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

openshift-ci bot changed the title ~~Fix Azure Stack Hub compatibility with dual SDK approach~~ OCPBUGS-74495: Fix Azure Stack Hub compatibility with dual SDK approach Feb 5, 2026

openshift-ci-robot added jira/valid-reference Indicates that this PR references a valid Jira ticket of any type. jira/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Jira bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. labels Feb 5, 2026

openshift-ci bot requested review from flavianmissi, ricardomaraschini and xiuwang February 5, 2026 13:01

bryan-cox force-pushed the fix-azure-stack-hub-compatibility branch from ccd403f to fcb0c01 Compare February 5, 2026 14:44

jianlinliu mentioned this pull request Feb 10, 2026

OCPBUGS-56846: validate azure user-assigned identity existence openshift/installer#10220

Merged

duanwei33 mentioned this pull request Feb 12, 2026

STOR-2768: Rebase v1.34.1 openshift/azure-disk-csi-driver#120

Merged

bryan-cox and others added 5 commits March 3, 2026 13:21

bryan-cox force-pushed the fix-azure-stack-hub-compatibility branch from abeed32 to e61917f Compare March 3, 2026 18:22

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

OCPBUGS-74495: Fix Azure Stack Hub compatibility with dual SDK approach#1287

OCPBUGS-74495: Fix Azure Stack Hub compatibility with dual SDK approach#1287
bryan-cox wants to merge 6 commits intoopenshift:mainfrom
bryan-cox:fix-azure-stack-hub-compatibility

bryan-cox commented Feb 5, 2026

Uh oh!

bryan-cox commented Feb 5, 2026

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Feb 5, 2026

Summary

Changes

Architecture

Test plan

Uh oh!

openshift-ci bot commented Feb 5, 2026

Uh oh!

bryan-cox commented Feb 5, 2026

Uh oh!

ricardomaraschini commented Feb 18, 2026

Uh oh!

xiuwang commented Feb 28, 2026

Uh oh!

openshift-ci bot commented Feb 28, 2026

Uh oh!

bryan-cox commented Mar 3, 2026

Uh oh!

openshift-ci bot commented Mar 3, 2026

Uh oh!

openshift-ci bot commented Mar 3, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

Conversation

bryan-cox commented Feb 5, 2026

Summary

Changes

Architecture

Test plan

Uh oh!

bryan-cox commented Feb 5, 2026

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Feb 5, 2026

Summary

Changes

Architecture

Test plan

Uh oh!

openshift-ci bot commented Feb 5, 2026

Uh oh!

bryan-cox commented Feb 5, 2026

Uh oh!

ricardomaraschini commented Feb 18, 2026

Uh oh!

xiuwang commented Feb 28, 2026

Uh oh!

openshift-ci bot commented Feb 28, 2026

Uh oh!

bryan-cox commented Mar 3, 2026

Uh oh!

openshift-ci bot commented Mar 3, 2026

Uh oh!

openshift-ci bot commented Mar 3, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants