Skip to content

Conversation

@wking
Copy link
Member

@wking wking commented Aug 22, 2020

With c9fab43 (#311), I attempted to pivot to loading the TLS configration from the openshift-config-managed namespace. But I hadn't realized that cmConfigInformer was scoped to the openshift-config namespace, so attempts to retrieve trusted-ca-bundle failed via the "not found" no-op path regardless of whether the ConfigMap actually existed. With this commit, I create a new informer for the openshift-config-managed namespace, so we can successfully retrieve the ConfigMap when it exists.

An alternative approach would be to drop the informers.WithNamespace filter. My impression is that having two namespace-filtered informers will be more efficient than a single unfiltered informer, but I'm not really sure.

With c9fab43 (pkg/cvo: Fetch proxy CA certs from
openshift-config-managed/trusted-ca-bundle, 2020-01-31, openshift#311), I
attempted to pivot to loading the TLS configration from the
openshift-config-managed namespace.  But I hadn't realized that
cmConfigInformer was scoped to the openshift-config namespace, so
attempts to retrieve trusted-ca-bundle failed via the "not found"
no-op path regardless of whether the ConfigMap actually existed.  With
this commit, I create a new informer for the openshift-config-managed
namespace, so we can successfully retrieve the ConfigMap when it
exists.

An alternative approach would be to drop the informers.WithNamespace
filter.  My impression is that having two namespace-filtered informers
will be more efficient than a single unfiltered informer, but I'm not
really sure.
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added bugzilla/severity-medium Referenced Bugzilla bug's severity is medium for the branch this PR is targeting. bugzilla/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. labels Aug 22, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@wking: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1797123, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state. The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug
  • bug is open, matching expected state (open)
  • bug target release (4.6.0) matches configured target release for branch (4.6.0)
  • bug is in the state ASSIGNED, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, ON_DEV, POST, POST)
Details

In response to this:

Bug 1797123: pkg/cvo: Separate ConfigMap informer for openshift-config-managed

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.

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Aug 22, 2020
@jottofar
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

@jottofar
Copy link
Contributor

/hold
In case @LalatenduMohanty still wants to look.
/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Aug 24, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Aug 24, 2020
@LalatenduMohanty
Copy link
Member

An alternative approach would be to drop the informers.WithNamespace filter. My impression is that having two namespace-filtered informers will be more efficient than a single unfiltered informer, but I'm not really sure.

I am not sure which is the better way to move ahead. So going ahead with the current implementation.

Copy link
Member

@LalatenduMohanty LalatenduMohanty left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm

@LalatenduMohanty
Copy link
Member

/hold cancel

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Aug 25, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: jottofar, LalatenduMohanty, wking

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:
  • OWNERS [LalatenduMohanty,jottofar,wking]

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

@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit bcf385b into openshift:master Aug 25, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@wking: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged: openshift/cluster-version-operator#441, openshift/cluster-version-operator#311. Bugzilla bug 1797123 has been moved to the MODIFIED state.

Details

In response to this:

Bug 1797123: pkg/cvo: Separate ConfigMap informer for openshift-config-managed

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.

@wking wking deleted the openshift-config-managed-listing-fix branch August 25, 2020 16:35
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. bugzilla/severity-medium Referenced Bugzilla bug's severity is medium for the branch this PR is targeting. bugzilla/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants