Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Rebase 1.8.1 #17115

Merged
merged 83 commits into from
Nov 20, 2017
Merged

Rebase 1.8.1 #17115

merged 83 commits into from
Nov 20, 2017

Conversation

soltysh
Copy link
Member

@soltysh soltysh commented Oct 31, 2017

@mfojtik @sttts @liggitt @deads2k @ironcladlou you can slowly start looking into it.

Rebase status:

  • build
    • make build
    • make build-test
  • test
    • unit
    • integration
    • cmd
    • e2e
    • extended networking
    • extended images
    • conformance install
    • extended builds
    • conformance install_update
    • conformance gce

follow ups:

release notes - added to openshift/openshift-docs#6458

  • autoscaling/v2alpha1 removed
  • batch/v2alpha1 scheduled jobs removed
  • kubelet must not use swap
  • stdlib json decoding is stricter than ugorji/json-iter ("123"->int breaks, {}->[] breaks)

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Oct 31, 2017
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Oct 31, 2017
@openshift-merge-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: soltysh
We suggest the following additional approver: eparis

Assign the PR to them by writing /assign @eparis in a comment when ready.

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

Needs approval from an approver in each of these OWNERS Files:

You can indicate your approval by writing /approve in a comment
You can cancel your approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files. label Oct 31, 2017
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot added needs-api-review vendor-update Touching vendor dir or related files labels Oct 31, 2017
@soltysh
Copy link
Member Author

soltysh commented Oct 31, 2017

@mfojtik in case I messed something up when reorganizing commits the before tree is here.

@soltysh soltysh assigned sttts, liggitt and deads2k and unassigned gabemontero and 0xmichalis Oct 31, 2017
api/types/registry \
api/types/strslice \
api/types/swarm \
api/types/versions
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

wow, if this goes away finally

@@ -68,6 +65,9 @@ type Serializer struct {
var _ runtime.Serializer = &Serializer{}
var _ recognizer.RecognizingDecoder = &Serializer{}

// TODO: Remove jsoniter for now as it is buggy and fails the serialization
// test for DockerImage objects.
/*
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can you add more info to the commit message? What fails? Do we have a test-case? Can we open an issue in the upstream project?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@mfojtik fyi, since you've touched it

@@ -784,7 +786,7 @@ func GetAuditConfig(auditConfig configapi.AuditConfig) (audit.Backend, auditpoli
// backwards compatible writer to regular log
writer = cmdutil.NewGLogWriterV(0)
}
backend = auditlog.NewBackend(writer, auditlog.FormatLegacy)
backend = auditlog.NewBackend(writer, auditlog.FormatLegacy, auditv1alpha1.SchemeGroupVersion)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

why not the beta version?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't want to do it in the rebase, I'll do it post, I have a trello card for it.

if err != nil {
return nil, errors.NewInternalError(fmt.Errorf("unable to connect to server: %v", err))
}
streamOptions := remotecommand.StreamOptions{
SupportedProtocols: kubeletremotecommand.SupportedStreamingProtocols,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

surprising

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That's still broken, that's one of the pieces I need to revisit.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@soltysh is there a follow up issue or note somewhere so we don't forget?

@soltysh
Copy link
Member Author

soltysh commented Nov 6, 2017

Re-synced k8s bump commit and rebased against this morning master, but it appears there are some problems in the k8s pr. I'll sync with @mfojtik tomorrow and figure this out.

@soltysh soltysh force-pushed the rebase_1.8.1 branch 3 times, most recently from 533ef94 to 419f26d Compare November 8, 2017 10:02
@@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ func (c *MasterConfig) newOAuthServerHandler(genericConfig *apiserver.Config) (h
}

func (c *MasterConfig) withAggregator(delegateAPIServer apiserver.DelegationTarget, kubeAPIServerConfig apiserver.RecommendedConfig, apiExtensionsInformers apiextensionsinformers.SharedInformerFactory) (*aggregatorapiserver.APIAggregator, error) {
aggregatorConfig, err := c.createAggregatorConfig(kubeAPIServerConfig)
aggregatorConfig, err := c.createAggregatorConfig(kubeAPIServerConfig.Config, c.ClientGoKubeInformers)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why isn't kubeAPIServerConfig.SharedInformerFactory set with a non-nil value?

This change looks suspicious, probably now hiding another error.

@soltysh soltysh force-pushed the rebase_1.8.1 branch 4 times, most recently from d141711 to 036aca0 Compare November 10, 2017 15:14
@liggitt
Copy link
Contributor

liggitt commented Nov 20, 2017

CI is green on 8e9bea0 modulo existing issues against master

Squashed commits to 614724c (zero diff with 8e9bea0)

no conflicts in the two commits between 79097d0...3841e1d

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@soltysh: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun them all:

Test name Commit Details Rerun command
ci/openshift-jenkins/extended_conformance_install_update 8e9bea0 link /test extended_conformance_install_update
ci/openshift-jenkins/integration 614724c link /test integration
ci/openshift-jenkins/extended_conformance_install 614724c link /test extended_conformance_install
ci/openshift-jenkins/extended_image_ecosystem 614724c link /test extended_image_ecosystem
ci/openshift-jenkins/extended_conformance_gce 614724c link /test extended_conformance_gce

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR.

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. I understand the commands that are listed here.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
needs-api-review retest-not-required size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet