MG-62,MG-94: Support Log Gather i.e. must-gather operator #1830
Conversation
|
@swghosh: This pull request references MG-62 which is a valid jira issue. Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the spike to target the "4.20.0" version, but no target version was set. In response to this:
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
added
the
jira/valid-reference
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
|
Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request. |
swghosh
force-pushed
the
mg-operator
branch
3 times, most recently
from
3849836 to
671e7fd
Compare
swghosh
changed the title
openshift-ci
bot
removed
the
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
|
/cc @rausingh-rh |
Signed-off-by: Swarup Ghosh <[email protected]>
swghosh
changed the title
swghosh
changed the title
swghosh
changed the title
|
@swghosh: This pull request references MG-62 which is a valid jira issue. Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the sub-task to target the "4.21.0" version, but no target version was set. This pull request references MG-94 which is a valid jira issue. Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the spike to target the "4.21.0" version, but no target version was set. In response to this:
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. |
|
@TrilokGeer @Prashanth684 PTAL :) Incorporated the suggestions for the API spec change, thanks @iamkirkbater! |
Signed-off-by: Swarup Ghosh <[email protected]>
Prashanth684
added
the
approved
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED Approval requirements bypassed by manually added approval. This pull-request has been approved by: 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:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // persistentVolumeClaimReference is a reference to a PersistentVolumeClaim. | ||
| type PersistentVolumeClaimReference struct { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why exactly do we need it to be wrapped in this struct and not just a name as in the original?
| // PersistentVolumeConfig defines the configuration for Persistent Volume storage. | ||
| type PersistentVolumeConfig struct { | ||
| // claim is a required field that specifies the configuration of the PersistentVolumeClaim that will be used to store the must-gather archive. | ||
| // The PersistentVolumeClaim must be created in the openshift-insights namespace. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| // The PersistentVolumeClaim must be created in the openshift-insights namespace. | |
| // The PersistentVolumeClaim must be created in the must gather operator namespace. |
|
@swghosh: The following test failed, say
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. |
|
Maybe a question that should have been asked before - why is the MustGather a namespace scoped CR and not a cluster scoped CR? |
4 participants
Proposal for an OLM day-2 Technology Preview operator that helps collect must-gather data and (possibily) automatically upload an archive to a Red Hat support case.