🐛 add PDB to make sure at least 1 pod is always available during upgrade #2362
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for olmv1 ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2362 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 70.50% 74.39% +3.89%
==========================================
Files 93 93
Lines 7300 7300
==========================================
+ Hits 5147 5431 +284
+ Misses 1719 1435 -284
Partials 434 434
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
| enabled: [] | ||
| disabled: [] | ||
| podDisruptionBudget: | ||
| enabled: true |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[nit]: perhaps would be better to name it create:?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
However, all the other options are named enabled
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actually, is there a reason for this option, and not just create it based on catalog or operatorController state? (rhetorical question)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it gives users explicit control over a resource and follows the existing pattern in the codebase where features are individually toggleable.
| {{- if .Values.options.catalogd.enabled }} | ||
| {{- if .Values.options.catalogd.podDisruptionBudget.enabled }} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[nit]: perhaps we can combine these two into single if
| @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@ | |||
| {{- if .Values.options.operatorController.enabled }} | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
same comments as for the other pdb.
|
/approve |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
approved
|
/retest e2e / experimental-e2e (pull_request) |
|
@jianzhangbjz: No presubmit jobs available for operator-framework/operator-controller@main DetailsIn 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 kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
|
/retest experimental-e2e |
|
@jianzhangbjz: No presubmit jobs available for operator-framework/operator-controller@main DetailsIn 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 kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: tmshort The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
Updated the Waiting for Prometheus Operator pod to become ready...
error: no matching resources found
Cleaning up /tmp/tmp.Gv71SsiUrG
make: *** [Makefile:295: prometheus] Error 1
Error: Process completed with exit code 2. |
|
/lgtm |
openshift-merge-bot
bot
merged commit 5ed8cf4
into
operator-framework:main
…g upgrade (operator-framework#2362)" This is causing an issue with multi-node upgrades downstream. This reverts commit 5ed8cf4.
4 participants
Description
To address OCPBUGS-62517. Currently, the operator-controller lacks
PodDisruptionBudgetconfiguration. During node drain operations or cluster upgrades, all controller pods can be evictedSimultaneously, causing the operator to report
Available=False, which violates the OpenShift API contract:Add PodDisruptionBudget resources with
minAvailable: 1for both controllers to ensure at least one pod remains available during:Reviewer Checklist
Assisted-by: Claude code