Skip to content

Conversation

sadasu
Copy link
Contributor

@sadasu sadasu commented Apr 29, 2025

Promotes GCP Cluster Hosted DNS feature from techpreview to available by default.

Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Apr 29, 2025

Hello @sadasu! Some important instructions when contributing to openshift/api:
API design plays an important part in the user experience of OpenShift and as such API PRs are subject to a high level of scrutiny to ensure they follow our best practices. If you haven't already done so, please review the OpenShift API Conventions and ensure that your proposed changes are compliant. Following these conventions will help expedite the api review process for your PR.

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. label Apr 29, 2025
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot requested review from deads2k and yuqi-zhang April 29, 2025 21:14
@sadasu sadasu changed the title Promote GCPClusterHostedDNS to Default CORS-3993: Promote GCPClusterHostedDNS to Default Apr 29, 2025
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the jira/valid-reference Indicates that this PR references a valid Jira ticket of any type. label Apr 29, 2025
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

openshift-ci-robot commented Apr 29, 2025

@sadasu: This pull request references CORS-3993 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 story to target the "4.19.0" 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.

@sadasu
Copy link
Contributor Author

sadasu commented Apr 29, 2025

/jira refresh

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

openshift-ci-robot commented Apr 29, 2025

@sadasu: This pull request references CORS-3993 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 story to target the "4.19.0" version, but no target version was set.

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.

@sadasu
Copy link
Contributor Author

sadasu commented Apr 29, 2025

/jira refresh

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

openshift-ci-robot commented Apr 29, 2025

@sadasu: This pull request references CORS-3993 which is a valid jira issue.

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.

@sadasu sadasu force-pushed the gcp-custom-dns-ga branch from 8be6dcd to 7afb31a Compare April 29, 2025 21:53
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Apr 29, 2025
@sadasu sadasu force-pushed the gcp-custom-dns-ga branch 2 times, most recently from 742fbce to b385a03 Compare April 30, 2025 02:09
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Apr 30, 2025
@sadasu sadasu force-pushed the gcp-custom-dns-ga branch from b385a03 to d668c33 Compare April 30, 2025 02:36
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label May 12, 2025
@sadasu sadasu force-pushed the gcp-custom-dns-ga branch from d668c33 to 4a7fe43 Compare May 27, 2025 20:15
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label May 27, 2025
@sadasu sadasu force-pushed the gcp-custom-dns-ga branch 2 times, most recently from 0a623cf to b2df60c Compare May 27, 2025 21:56
@sadasu sadasu force-pushed the gcp-custom-dns-ga branch from b2df60c to aff303c Compare July 24, 2025 15:00
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jul 24, 2025
@sadasu sadasu force-pushed the gcp-custom-dns-ga branch from aff303c to d45b615 Compare July 24, 2025 17:12
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jul 24, 2025
This promotes GCP Cluster Hosted DNS feature from techpreview to
available by default.
@sadasu sadasu force-pushed the gcp-custom-dns-ga branch from d45b615 to 677781c Compare July 29, 2025 18:52
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

openshift-ci-robot commented Jul 29, 2025

@sadasu: This pull request references CORS-3993 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 story to target either version "4.20." or "openshift-4.20.", but it targets "4.19.0" instead.

In response to this:

Promotes GCP Cluster Hosted DNS feature from techpreview to available by default.

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.

@gpei
Copy link

gpei commented Aug 4, 2025

/test verify-feature-promotion

@sadasu
Copy link
Contributor Author

sadasu commented Aug 4, 2025

/test e2e-aws-ovn-hypershift

@JoelSpeed
Copy link
Contributor

/test verify-feature-promotion

@gpei
Copy link

gpei commented Aug 13, 2025

/retest

@JoelSpeed
Copy link
Contributor

@sadasu Do you have any E2E tests that will actually demonstrate this feature? IIRC, it's opt-in right? I would expect therefore to see some periodics configuring this feature and we can then check the install success rate for those? And perhaps any particular tests that cover the feature once installed?

@JoelSpeed
Copy link
Contributor

Note, I believe the verify feature promotion is not showing the correct data right now

See https://redhat-internal.slack.com/archives/C01CQA76KMX/p1755082750657859

@sadasu
Copy link
Contributor Author

sadasu commented Aug 13, 2025

/test verify-feature-promotion

@sadasu
Copy link
Contributor Author

sadasu commented Aug 13, 2025

@sadasu Do you have any E2E tests that will actually demonstrate this feature? IIRC, it's opt-in right? I would expect therefore to see some periodics configuring this feature and we can then check the install success rate for those? And perhaps any particular tests that cover the feature once installed?

The periodic e2e job shows install success. You should see it in CR too.

Yes, this feature is an opt-int and needs to be specifically enabled via install-config.

Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Aug 13, 2025

@sadasu: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name Commit Details Required Rerun command
ci/prow/e2e-aws-serial-techpreview d668c33 link true /test e2e-aws-serial-techpreview

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.

@gpei
Copy link

gpei commented Aug 15, 2025

/test verify-feature-promotion

@gpei
Copy link

gpei commented Aug 15, 2025

I see the overall install success rate for GCP platform in the past week is 95.1% now, so re-triggered the verify-feature-promotion test and it did pass.
Not sure if we want to use this test result to complete the merge of this PR.

@candita
Copy link
Contributor

candita commented Aug 15, 2025

@sadasu @JoelSpeed we are seeing some issues with default DNS that are causing Sippy conformance test failures. Please do not merge. cc @Miciah @alebedev87

@sadasu
Copy link
Contributor Author

sadasu commented Aug 15, 2025

/hold

@candita, @JoelSpeed is already aware.

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Aug 15, 2025
@patrickdillon
Copy link
Contributor

patrickdillon commented Aug 19, 2025

@sadasu @JoelSpeed we are seeing some issues with default DNS that are causing Sippy conformance test failures. Please do not merge. cc @Miciah @alebedev87

We have worked with Candace, Miciah and Andrey to identify and work on solution for the e2e failures. To make a long story short, Custom DNS on a cloud is similar to how UPI or baremetal platforms setup DNS. There were certain assumptions baked into the existing E2E tests that always expect cloud platforms to use cloud DNS (despite the API contract). The failing tests did not indicate a problem in the product, only in the tests. We're working on getting those squared away long term, and in the short-term are skipping the problem tests for this specific job (origin skips the tests permanently for baremetal networking platforms).

@sadasu
Copy link
Contributor Author

sadasu commented Aug 19, 2025

@sadasu @JoelSpeed we are seeing some issues with default DNS that are causing Sippy conformance test failures. Please do not merge. cc @Miciah @alebedev87

We have worked with Candace, Miciah and Andrey to identify and work on solution for the e2e failures. To make a long story short, Custom DNS on a cloud is similar to how UPI or baremetal platforms setup DNS. There were certain assumptions baked into the existing E2E tests that always expect cloud platforms to use cloud DNS (despite the API contract). The failing tests did not indicate a problem in the product, only in the tests. We're working on getting those squared away long term, and in the short-term are skipping the problem tests for this specific job (origin skips the tests permanently for baremetal networking platforms).

/hold cancel

For the above reasons.

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Aug 19, 2025
@sadasu
Copy link
Contributor Author

sadasu commented Aug 22, 2025

/test verify-feature-promotion

@JoelSpeed
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm

/hold are we holding this until after branching?

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Aug 28, 2025
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Aug 28, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Aug 28, 2025

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: JoelSpeed, sadasu

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

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Aug 28, 2025
@sadasu
Copy link
Contributor Author

sadasu commented Aug 28, 2025

/hold are we holding this until after branching?

We are still hoping to merge this in 4.20 before branching.

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. do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. jira/valid-reference Indicates that this PR references a valid Jira ticket of any type. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants