OCPBUGS-54745: status: Conditionally add CRDs to relatedObjects #1217

Miciah · 2025-04-09T00:24:57Z

status: Omit istios namespace in `relatedObjects`

Omit the namespace for the istios resource in relatedObjects as the istios resource is cluster-scoped.

status: Omit gateways namespace in `relatedObjects`

Omit the namespace for the gateways resource in relatedObjects as Istio manages gateways in all namespaces.

`getOperatorState`: Add `context` parameter

Pass ctx from the controller's Reconcile method to getOperatorState, and use it instead of context.TODO().

status: Conditionally add CRDs to `relatedObjects`

Check whether the gatewayclasses, gateways, and istios CRDs actually exist before adding them to relatedObjects.

Watch customresourcedefinitions in the status controller so that it updates relatedObjects as these CRDs are created.

Check the "GatewayAPIController" featuregate to determine whether to add the gatewayclasses, gateways, istios, and subscriptions resources to relatedObjects, in addition to checking the "GatewayAPI" featuregate.

Before this change, the operator could add istios to relatedObjects even if the OSSM subscription failed to install. By convention, an operator should only add resources to relatedObjects if those resources exist.

openshift-ci-robot · 2025-04-09T00:25:03Z

@Miciah: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-54745, which is invalid:

expected the bug to target the "4.19.0" version, but no target version was set

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:

getOperatorState: Add context parameter

Pass ctx from the controller's Reconcile method to getOperatorState, and use it instead of context.TODO()`.

status: Conditionally add CRDs to relatedObjects

Check whether the gatewayclasses, gateways, and istios CRDs actually exist before adding them to relatedObjects.

Also, use the "GatewayAPIController" featuregate for the gateways and istios resources, rather than the "GatewayAPI" featuregate.

Before this change, the operator could add istios to relatedObjects even if the OSSM subscription failed to install. By convention, an operator should only add resources to relatedObjects if those resources exist.

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.

Miciah · 2025-04-09T00:29:52Z

/jira refresh

openshift-ci-robot · 2025-04-09T00:30:01Z

@Miciah: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-54745, 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 (4.19.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.19.0)
bug is in the state New, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @lihongan

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.

candita · 2025-04-09T15:23:35Z

/assign @alebedev87
/assign

candita · 2025-04-09T21:24:40Z

pkg/operator/controller/status/controller.go

+			)
+
+			if err := r.cache.Get(ctx, gatewaysResourceNamespacedName, &crd); err != nil {
+				if !errors.IsNotFound(err) {


Does it matter much if there was a prior resource, then it was deleted? E.g. someone removed the Istio or other CRDs we're checking here - do we then need to remove these from relatedObjects? Or is it okay because this is reconciled periodically?

The watch on CRDs should trigger reconciliation if the istios CRD is deleted:

cluster-ingress-operator/pkg/operator/controller/status/controller.go

Lines 135 to 143 in 0fa1281

if err := c.Watch(source.Kind[client.Object](operatorCache, &apiextensionsv1.CustomResourceDefinition{}, handler.EnqueueRequestsFromMapFunc(toDefaultIngressController), predicate.Funcs{

CreateFunc: func(e event.CreateEvent) bool {

return relatedObjectsCRDs.Has(e.Object.GetName())

},

UpdateFunc: func(e event.UpdateEvent) bool {

return false

},

DeleteFunc: func(e event.DeleteEvent) bool {

return relatedObjectsCRDs.Has(e.Object.GetName())

getOperatorState intializes operatorState leaving haveIstiosResource false and only sets it to true if a Get on the istios CRD returns a nil error value, meaning the CRD is present:

cluster-ingress-operator/pkg/operator/controller/status/controller.go

Lines 354 to 355 in 0fa1281

func (r *reconciler) getOperatorState(ctx context.Context, ingressNamespace, canaryNamespace string) (operatorState, error) {

state := operatorState{}

cluster-ingress-operator/pkg/operator/controller/status/controller.go

Lines 415 to 421 in 0fa1281

if err := r.cache.Get(ctx, istiosResourceNamespacedName, &crd); err != nil {

if !errors.IsNotFound(err) {

return state, fmt.Errorf("failed to get CRD %q: %v", istiosResourceName, err)

}

} else {

state.haveIstiosResource = true

}

Then Reconcile only adds istios to relatedObjects if haveIstiosResource is true:

cluster-ingress-operator/pkg/operator/controller/status/controller.go

Lines 255 to 260 in 0fa1281

if state.haveIstiosResource {

related = append(related, configv1.ObjectReference{

Group: sailv1.GroupVersion.Group,

Resource: "istios",

})

}

So we should be fine.

candita · 2025-04-09T21:32:44Z

Cluster install failure
/test e2e-aws-operator-techpreview

Miciah · 2025-04-10T13:23:22Z

/test all
since #1214 merged.

candita · 2025-04-11T16:36:20Z

/retest-required

candita · 2025-04-11T16:50:49Z

E2E Test failure:
operator_test.go:254:
Expected [{Group: Resource:namespaces Namespace: Name:openshift-ingress-operator}
{Group:operator.openshift.io Resource:ingresscontrollers Namespace:openshift-ingress-operator Name:} {Group:ingress.operator.openshift.io Resource:dnsrecords Namespace:openshift-ingress-operator Name:}
{Group: Resource:namespaces Namespace: Name:openshift-ingress}
{Group:ingress.operator.openshift.io Resource:dnsrecords Namespace:openshift-ingress Name:}
{Group: Resource:namespaces Namespace: Name:openshift-ingress-canary}
{Group:gateway.networking.k8s.io Resource:gatewayclasses Namespace: Name:}],

found [{Group: Resource:namespaces Namespace: Name:openshift-ingress-operator}
{Group:operator.openshift.io Resource:ingresscontrollers Namespace:openshift-ingress-operator Name:} {Group:ingress.operator.openshift.io Resource:dnsrecords Namespace:openshift-ingress-operator Name:}
{Group: Resource:namespaces Namespace: Name:openshift-ingress}
{Group:ingress.operator.openshift.io Resource:dnsrecords Namespace:openshift-ingress Name:}
{Group: Resource:namespaces Namespace: Name:openshift-ingress-canary}
{Group:gateway.networking.k8s.io Resource:gatewayclasses Namespace: Name:}
{Group:gateway.networking.k8s.io Resource:gateways Namespace:openshift-ingress Name:}]
operator_test.go:264: Did not get expected status related objects: timed out waiting for the condition

Miciah · 2025-04-11T17:20:12Z

https://github.com/openshift/cluster-ingress-operator/compare/0fa1281ffd86f48464e2f09c302f47f41bc4a8d6..c7db35d125f750f799fe98bf48a850089b1b09e2 makes two changes:

Only add the "subscriptions" resource to relatedObjects if the "GatewayAPIController" featuregate is enabled.
Adjust TestClusterOperatorStatusRelatedObjects to expect "gateways" in relatedObjects if the "GatewayAPIController" featuregate is enabled.

candita · 2025-04-11T21:41:11Z

/test e2e-aws-gatewayapi

candita · 2025-04-11T23:14:32Z

/retest

candita · 2025-04-15T21:39:34Z

/retest-required

candita · 2025-04-15T21:53:17Z

test/e2e/operator_test.go

+			expected = append(expected, configv1.ObjectReference{
+				Group:     "gateway.networking.k8s.io",
+				Resource:  "gateways",
+				Namespace: "openshift-ingress",


Should the namespace be blank here?

Possibly. My thinking was that we were telling people to create gateways in the "openshift-ingress" namespace, so the platform-managed ones should be there, we're allowing gateways in other namespaces as well (we just won't manage DNS for them). Based on that, I suppose it makes sense to leave the namespace blank.

candita · 2025-04-15T22:04:45Z

test/e2e/operator_test.go

 		})
-		// This test runs before TestGatewayAPI, so we do *not* expect
-		// to see subscriptions, istios, or gateways in relatedObjects.
+		if gatewayAPIControllerEnabled, err := isFeatureGateEnabled(features.FeatureGateGatewayAPIController); err != nil {


Based on the test output, gateways is never appended to expected. Does anything enable FeatureGateGatewayAPIController before this test is run?

The featuregate should be enabled in the techpreview jobs and not currently enabled in any other jobs.

Miciah · 2025-04-15T23:22:19Z

https://github.com/openshift/cluster-ingress-operator/compare/c7db35d125f750f799fe98bf48a850089b1b09e2..4ca2f3ee05bcafa57afef7ab12e18e29f934db4b makes these changes:

Update the status controller to add "gatewayclasses" to relatedObjects if, and only if, both the "GatewayAPI" and "GatewayAPIController" featuregates are enabled.
Omit the namespace for gateways in relatedObjects as Istio manages gateways in any namespace.
Update TestClusterOperatorStatusRelatedObjects accordingly.

openshift-ci · 2025-04-24T20:28:54Z

@rhamini3: The specified target(s) for /test were not found.
The following commands are available to trigger required jobs:

/test e2e-aws-operator

/test e2e-aws-ovn

/test e2e-aws-ovn-serial

/test e2e-aws-ovn-upgrade

/test e2e-azure-operator

/test e2e-gcp-operator

/test e2e-hypershift

/test hypershift-e2e-aks

/test images

/test unit

/test verify

The following commands are available to trigger optional jobs:

/test e2e-aws-gatewayapi

/test e2e-aws-gatewayapi-conformance

/test e2e-aws-operator-techpreview

/test e2e-aws-ovn-single-node

/test e2e-aws-ovn-techpreview

/test e2e-azure-manual-oidc

/test e2e-azure-ovn

/test e2e-gcp-ovn

/test e2e-ibmcloud-operator

/test e2e-openstack-operator

/test okd-scos-e2e-aws-ovn

/test okd-scos-images

Use /test all to run the following jobs that were automatically triggered:

pull-ci-openshift-cluster-ingress-operator-master-e2e-aws-gatewayapi

pull-ci-openshift-cluster-ingress-operator-master-e2e-aws-operator

pull-ci-openshift-cluster-ingress-operator-master-e2e-aws-operator-techpreview

pull-ci-openshift-cluster-ingress-operator-master-e2e-aws-ovn

pull-ci-openshift-cluster-ingress-operator-master-e2e-aws-ovn-serial

pull-ci-openshift-cluster-ingress-operator-master-e2e-aws-ovn-single-node

pull-ci-openshift-cluster-ingress-operator-master-e2e-aws-ovn-techpreview

pull-ci-openshift-cluster-ingress-operator-master-e2e-aws-ovn-upgrade

pull-ci-openshift-cluster-ingress-operator-master-e2e-azure-operator

pull-ci-openshift-cluster-ingress-operator-master-e2e-azure-ovn

pull-ci-openshift-cluster-ingress-operator-master-e2e-gcp-operator

pull-ci-openshift-cluster-ingress-operator-master-e2e-gcp-ovn

pull-ci-openshift-cluster-ingress-operator-master-e2e-hypershift

pull-ci-openshift-cluster-ingress-operator-master-hypershift-e2e-aks

pull-ci-openshift-cluster-ingress-operator-master-images

pull-ci-openshift-cluster-ingress-operator-master-okd-scos-e2e-aws-ovn

pull-ci-openshift-cluster-ingress-operator-master-unit

pull-ci-openshift-cluster-ingress-operator-master-verify

In response to this:

/test e2e-gcp-ovn-techpreview

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.

rhamini3 · 2025-04-30T18:30:18Z

Valid related objects test is now passing with the proposed changes in AWS Tech Preview
Marking bug as verified
/label qe-approved

openshift-ci-robot · 2025-04-30T18:30:24Z

@Miciah: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-54745, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

bug is open, matching expected state (open)
bug target version (4.19.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.19.0)
bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

No GitHub users were found matching the public email listed for the QA contact in Jira ([email protected]), skipping review request.

In response to this:

getOperatorState: Add context parameter

Pass ctx from the controller's Reconcile method to getOperatorState, and use it instead of context.TODO()`.

status: Conditionally add CRDs to relatedObjects

Check whether the gatewayclasses, gateways, and istios CRDs actually exist before adding them to relatedObjects.

Also, use the "GatewayAPIController" featuregate for the gateways and istios resources, rather than the "GatewayAPI" featuregate.

Before this change, the operator could add istios to relatedObjects even if the OSSM subscription failed to install. By convention, an operator should only add resources to relatedObjects if those resources exist.

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.

Omit the namespace for the istios resource in relatedObjects as the istios resource is cluster-scoped. * pkg/operator/controller/status/controller.go (Reconcile): Remove the namespace for istios.

Omit the namespace for the gateways resource in relatedObjects as Istio manages gateways in all namespaces. * pkg/operator/controller/status/controller.go (Reconcile): Remove the namespace for gateways.

* pkg/operator/controller/status/controller.go (Reconcile): Pass ctx to getOperatorState. * pkg/operator/controller/status/controller.go (getOperatorState): Add a parameter for ctx, and use it instead of context.TODO().

openshift-ci-robot · 2025-05-14T19:24:00Z

@Miciah: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-54745, which is invalid:

expected the bug to target either version "4.20." or "openshift-4.20.", but it targets "4.19.0" 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.

In response to this:

status: Omit istios namespace in relatedObjects

Omit the namespace for the istios resource in relatedObjects as the istios resource is cluster-scoped.

status: Omit gateways namespace in relatedObjects

Omit the namespace for the gateways resource in relatedObjects as Istio manages gateways in all namespaces.

getOperatorState: Add context parameter

Pass ctx from the controller's Reconcile method to getOperatorState, and use it instead of context.TODO()`.

status: Conditionally add CRDs to relatedObjects

Check whether the gatewayclasses, gateways, and istios CRDs actually exist before adding them to relatedObjects.

Watch customresourcedefinitions in the status controller so that it updates relatedObjects as these CRDs are created.

Check the "GatewayAPIController" featuregate to determine whether to add the gatewayclasses, gateways, istios, and subscriptions resources to relatedObjects, in addition to checking the "GatewayAPI" featuregate.

Before this change, the operator could add istios to relatedObjects even if the OSSM subscription failed to install. By convention, an operator should only add resources to relatedObjects if those resources exist.

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.

Check whether the gatewayclasses, gateways, and istios CRDs actually exist before adding them to relatedObjects. Watch customresourcedefinitions in the status controller so that it updates relatedObjects as these CRDs are created. Check the "GatewayAPIController" featuregate to determine whether to add the gatewayclasses, gateways, istios, and subscriptions resources to relatedObjects, in addition to checking the "GatewayAPI" featuregate. Before this change, the operator could add istios to relatedObjects even if the OSSM subscription failed to install. By convention, an operator should only add resources to relatedObjects if those resources exist. This commit fixes OCPBUGS-54745. https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-54745 * pkg/operator/controller/status/controller.go (gatewaysResourceName, gatewayclassesResourceName, istiosResourceName): New consts for the CRD names. (relatedObjectsCRDs): New var for a string set that contains gatewaysResourceName, gatewayclassesResourceName, and istiosResourceName. (New): Check the GatewayAPIControllerEnabled field in the controller config in addition to checking GatewayAPIEnabled to determine whether to watch subscriptions and customresourcedefinitions. Add a watch on customresourcedefinitions, with a predicate for CRDs with names that are in relatedObjectsCRDs. (Config): Add GatewayAPIControllerEnabled. (Reconcile): Check the GatewayAPIControllerEnabled field in the controller config as well as the haveIstiosResource, haveGatewayclassesResource, and haveGatewaysResource fields in the operatorState object, and conditionally add the corresponding resources to relatedObjects. (operatorState): Add haveIstiosResource, haveGatewaysResource, and haveGatewayclassesResource fields. (getOperatorState): Check GatewayAPIControllerEnabled in addition to GatewayAPIEnabled before checking for the OSSM subscription. Set haveGatewaysResource, haveGatewayclassesResource, and haveIstiosResource. * pkg/operator/operator.go (New): Specify GatewayAPIControllerEnabled in the status controller config. * test/e2e/operator_test.go (TestClusterOperatorStatusRelatedObjects): Expect to see "gateways" and "gatewayclasses" in relatedObjects if the "GatewayAPI" and "GatewayAPIController" featuregates are enabled.

Miciah · 2025-05-14T19:34:50Z

/hold cancel

openshift-ci · 2025-05-15T15:51:26Z

@Miciah: 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.

alebedev87 · 2025-05-16T10:55:57Z

pkg/operator/controller/status/controller.go

+			if err := r.cache.Get(ctx, gatewayclassesResourceNamespacedName, &crd); err != nil {
+				if !errors.IsNotFound(err) {
+					return state, fmt.Errorf("failed to get CRD %q: %v", gatewayclassesResourceName, err)
+				}
+			} else {
+				state.haveGatewayclassesResource = true
+			}


GatewayClasses and Gateways can be created even if OLM capabilities are not present. Should we move them up? Out of if r.config.GatewayAPIControllerEnabled && r.config.MarketplaceEnabled && r.config.OperatorLifecycleManagerEnabled condition.

I've gone back and forth on this matter, and I think there are reasonable arguments either way. In my most recent update, I have conditionalized adding gatewayclasses and gateways to relatedObjects with the condition r.config.GatewayAPIControllerEnabled && r.config.MarketplaceEnabled && r.config.OperatorLifecycleManagerEnabled on the grounds that we are only adding these resources to relatedObjects as part of, and in support of, the controller feature. That is, if we didn't provide our own controller and were only providing the CRDs, then we wouldn't bother gathering gatewayclasses or gateways; we only need these resources in order to diagnose issues with the gateway controller.

If the operator could specify gateways and gatewayclasses by controller name in the relatedObjects specification, I would consider doing that. As it is, the operator would need to check the controller name on each gatewayclass and then check the gatewayclass name on each gateway in order to add each individual gatewayclass or gateway that our controller managed, and I don't think that that would be appropriate or worth the effort.

That is, if we didn't provide our own controller and were only providing the CRDs, then we wouldn't bother gathering gatewayclasses or gateways; we only need these resources in order to diagnose issues with the gateway controller.

Ack.

alebedev87 · 2025-05-21T16:42:23Z

/lgtm
/approve

openshift-ci · 2025-05-21T16:42:51Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: alebedev87

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:

~~OWNERS~~ [alebedev87]

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

Miciah · 2025-05-29T01:13:28Z

/jira refresh

openshift-ci-robot · 2025-05-29T01:13:34Z

@Miciah: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-54745, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

bug is open, matching expected state (open)
bug target version (4.20.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.20.0)
bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

No GitHub users were found matching the public email listed for the QA contact in Jira ([email protected]), skipping review request.

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.

openshift-ci-robot · 2025-05-29T01:18:04Z

@Miciah: Jira Issue OCPBUGS-54745: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged:

openshift/cluster-ingress-operator#1217

Jira Issue OCPBUGS-54745 has been moved to the MODIFIED state.

In response to this:

status: Omit istios namespace in relatedObjects

Omit the namespace for the istios resource in relatedObjects as the istios resource is cluster-scoped.

status: Omit gateways namespace in relatedObjects

Omit the namespace for the gateways resource in relatedObjects as Istio manages gateways in all namespaces.

getOperatorState: Add context parameter

Pass ctx from the controller's Reconcile method to getOperatorState, and use it instead of context.TODO()`.

status: Conditionally add CRDs to relatedObjects

Check whether the gatewayclasses, gateways, and istios CRDs actually exist before adding them to relatedObjects.

Watch customresourcedefinitions in the status controller so that it updates relatedObjects as these CRDs are created.

Check the "GatewayAPIController" featuregate to determine whether to add the gatewayclasses, gateways, istios, and subscriptions resources to relatedObjects, in addition to checking the "GatewayAPI" featuregate.

Before this change, the operator could add istios to relatedObjects even if the OSSM subscription failed to install. By convention, an operator should only add resources to relatedObjects if those resources exist.

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-bot · 2025-05-29T05:41:10Z

[ART PR BUILD NOTIFIER]

Distgit: ose-cluster-ingress-operator
This PR has been included in build ose-cluster-ingress-operator-container-v4.20.0-202505290511.p0.g21ac32d.assembly.stream.el9.
All builds following this will include this PR.

openshift-ci-robot · 2025-09-03T14:57:53Z

@Miciah: Jira Issue OCPBUGS-54745 is in an unrecognized state (Verified) and will not be moved to the MODIFIED state.

In response to this:

status: Omit istios namespace in relatedObjects

Omit the namespace for the istios resource in relatedObjects as the istios resource is cluster-scoped.

status: Omit gateways namespace in relatedObjects

Omit the namespace for the gateways resource in relatedObjects as Istio manages gateways in all namespaces.

getOperatorState: Add context parameter

Pass ctx from the controller's Reconcile method to getOperatorState, and use it instead of context.TODO().

status: Conditionally add CRDs to relatedObjects

Check whether the gatewayclasses, gateways, and istios CRDs actually exist before adding them to relatedObjects.

Watch customresourcedefinitions in the status controller so that it updates relatedObjects as these CRDs are created.

Check the "GatewayAPIController" featuregate to determine whether to add the gatewayclasses, gateways, istios, and subscriptions resources to relatedObjects, in addition to checking the "GatewayAPI" featuregate.

Before this change, the operator could add istios to relatedObjects even if the OSSM subscription failed to install. By convention, an operator should only add resources to relatedObjects if those resources exist.

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 bot requested review from alebedev87 and rfredette April 9, 2025 00:25

openshift-ci-robot added jira/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Jira bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. and removed jira/invalid-bug Indicates that a referenced Jira bug is invalid for the branch this PR is targeting. labels Apr 9, 2025

openshift-ci bot requested a review from lihongan April 9, 2025 00:30

openshift-ci bot assigned alebedev87 and candita Apr 9, 2025

candita reviewed Apr 9, 2025

View reviewed changes

Miciah force-pushed the OCPBUGS-54745-status-conditionally-add-CRDs-to-relatedObjects branch from 0fa1281 to c7db35d Compare April 11, 2025 17:19

candita reviewed Apr 15, 2025

View reviewed changes

Miciah force-pushed the OCPBUGS-54745-status-conditionally-add-CRDs-to-relatedObjects branch 2 times, most recently from 07e8fef to 4ca2f3e Compare April 15, 2025 23:20

Miciah force-pushed the OCPBUGS-54745-status-conditionally-add-CRDs-to-relatedObjects branch from 4ca2f3e to 570e600 Compare April 15, 2025 23:49

openshift-ci bot added the qe-approved Signifies that QE has signed off on this PR label Apr 30, 2025

Miciah added 3 commits May 14, 2025 14:55

status: Omit istios namespace in relatedObjects

1d335e7

Omit the namespace for the istios resource in relatedObjects as the istios resource is cluster-scoped. * pkg/operator/controller/status/controller.go (Reconcile): Remove the namespace for istios.

status: Omit gateways namespace in relatedObjects

fb548fc

Omit the namespace for the gateways resource in relatedObjects as Istio manages gateways in all namespaces. * pkg/operator/controller/status/controller.go (Reconcile): Remove the namespace for gateways.

getOperatorState: Add context parameter

751bb76

* pkg/operator/controller/status/controller.go (Reconcile): Pass ctx to getOperatorState. * pkg/operator/controller/status/controller.go (getOperatorState): Add a parameter for ctx, and use it instead of context.TODO().

Miciah force-pushed the OCPBUGS-54745-status-conditionally-add-CRDs-to-relatedObjects branch from 1c68435 to 98b6246 Compare May 14, 2025 19:21

openshift-ci-robot added jira/invalid-bug Indicates that a referenced Jira bug is invalid for the branch this PR is targeting. and removed jira/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Jira bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. labels May 14, 2025

Miciah force-pushed the OCPBUGS-54745-status-conditionally-add-CRDs-to-relatedObjects branch from 98b6246 to f304027 Compare May 14, 2025 19:26

Miciah force-pushed the OCPBUGS-54745-status-conditionally-add-CRDs-to-relatedObjects branch from f304027 to 6f42089 Compare May 14, 2025 19:28

openshift-ci bot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label May 14, 2025

alebedev87 reviewed May 16, 2025

View reviewed changes

openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label May 21, 2025

openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label May 21, 2025

openshift-ci-robot added jira/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Jira bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. and removed jira/invalid-bug Indicates that a referenced Jira bug is invalid for the branch this PR is targeting. labels May 29, 2025

openshift-merge-bot bot merged commit 21ac32d into openshift:master May 29, 2025
20 checks passed

	if err := c.Watch(source.Kind[client.Object](operatorCache, &apiextensionsv1.CustomResourceDefinition{}, handler.EnqueueRequestsFromMapFunc(toDefaultIngressController), predicate.Funcs{
	CreateFunc: func(e event.CreateEvent) bool {
	return relatedObjectsCRDs.Has(e.Object.GetName())
	},
	UpdateFunc: func(e event.UpdateEvent) bool {
	return false
	},
	DeleteFunc: func(e event.DeleteEvent) bool {
	return relatedObjectsCRDs.Has(e.Object.GetName())

	func (r *reconciler) getOperatorState(ctx context.Context, ingressNamespace, canaryNamespace string) (operatorState, error) {
	state := operatorState{}

	if err := r.cache.Get(ctx, istiosResourceNamespacedName, &crd); err != nil {
	if !errors.IsNotFound(err) {
	return state, fmt.Errorf("failed to get CRD %q: %v", istiosResourceName, err)
	}
	} else {
	state.haveIstiosResource = true
	}

	if state.haveIstiosResource {
	related = append(related, configv1.ObjectReference{
	Group: sailv1.GroupVersion.Group,
	Resource: "istios",
	})
	}

OCPBUGS-54745: status: Conditionally add CRDs to relatedObjects #1217

OCPBUGS-54745: status: Conditionally add CRDs to relatedObjects #1217

Uh oh!

Conversation

Miciah commented Apr 9, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

status: Omit istios namespace in relatedObjects

status: Omit gateways namespace in relatedObjects

getOperatorState: Add context parameter

status: Conditionally add CRDs to relatedObjects

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Apr 9, 2025

getOperatorState: Add context parameter

status: Conditionally add CRDs to relatedObjects

Uh oh!

Miciah commented Apr 9, 2025

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Apr 9, 2025

Uh oh!

candita commented Apr 9, 2025

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

candita commented Apr 9, 2025

Uh oh!

Miciah commented Apr 10, 2025

Uh oh!

candita commented Apr 11, 2025

Uh oh!

candita commented Apr 11, 2025

Uh oh!

Miciah commented Apr 11, 2025

Uh oh!

candita commented Apr 11, 2025

Uh oh!

candita commented Apr 11, 2025

Uh oh!

candita commented Apr 15, 2025

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

candita Apr 15, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Miciah commented Apr 15, 2025

Uh oh!

openshift-ci bot commented Apr 24, 2025

Uh oh!

rhamini3 commented Apr 30, 2025

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Apr 30, 2025

getOperatorState: Add context parameter

status: Conditionally add CRDs to relatedObjects

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented May 14, 2025

status: Omit istios namespace in relatedObjects

status: Omit gateways namespace in relatedObjects

getOperatorState: Add context parameter

status: Conditionally add CRDs to relatedObjects

Uh oh!

Miciah commented May 14, 2025

Uh oh!

openshift-ci bot commented May 15, 2025

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

alebedev87 commented May 21, 2025

Uh oh!

openshift-ci bot commented May 21, 2025

Miciah commented Apr 9, 2025 •

edited

Loading

status: Omit istios namespace in `relatedObjects`

status: Omit gateways namespace in `relatedObjects`

`getOperatorState`: Add `context` parameter

status: Conditionally add CRDs to `relatedObjects`

`getOperatorState`: Add `context` parameter

status: Conditionally add CRDs to `relatedObjects`

candita Apr 15, 2025 •

edited

Loading

`getOperatorState`: Add `context` parameter

status: Conditionally add CRDs to `relatedObjects`

status: Omit istios namespace in `relatedObjects`

status: Omit gateways namespace in `relatedObjects`

`getOperatorState`: Add `context` parameter

status: Conditionally add CRDs to `relatedObjects`

status: Omit istios namespace in `relatedObjects`

status: Omit gateways namespace in `relatedObjects`

`getOperatorState`: Add `context` parameter

status: Conditionally add CRDs to `relatedObjects`

status: Omit istios namespace in `relatedObjects`

status: Omit gateways namespace in `relatedObjects`

`getOperatorState`: Add `context` parameter

status: Conditionally add CRDs to `relatedObjects`