-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 184
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
Bug 2276055: [release-4.16] Sync provider mode changes from main #2578
Bug 2276055: [release-4.16] Sync provider mode changes from main #2578
Conversation
@leelavg: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 2276055, 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
Requesting review from QA contact: 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 kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
@openshift-ci[bot]: GitHub didn't allow me to request PR reviews from the following users: nehaberry. Note that only red-hat-storage members and repo collaborators can review this PR, and authors cannot review their own PRs. 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 kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
Signed-off-by: Leela Venkaiah G <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Leela Venkaiah G <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Leela Venkaiah G <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Leela Venkaiah G <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Leela Venkaiah G <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Leela Venkaiah G <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Leela Venkaiah G <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Leela Venkaiah G <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Leela Venkaiah G <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Leela Venkaiah G <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Leela Venkaiah G <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Leela Venkaiah G <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Leela Venkaiah G <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Leela Venkaiah G <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Rohan Gupta <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Rohan Gupta <[email protected]>
renamed the controller files for storageClassRequest to storageRequest Signed-off-by: Rohan Gupta <[email protected]>
controller and main.go changes for renaming StorageClassRequest to StorageRequest Signed-off-by: Rohan Gupta <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Rohan Gupta <[email protected]>
renamed storageClassRequest to storageRequest in provider server api Signed-off-by: Rohan Gupta <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Rohan Gupta <[email protected]>
renamed storageClassRequests to storageReqest in the manifests Signed-off-by: Rohan Gupta <[email protected]>
generated code changes for renaming storageClassRequest to storageRequest using make gen-latest-csv and make generate Signed-off-by: Rohan Gupta <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Leela Venkaiah G <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Leela Venkaiah G <[email protected]>
This reverts commit 629351a. Signed-off-by: Leela Venkaiah G <[email protected]>
This reverts commit 015e679. Signed-off-by: Leela Venkaiah G <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Leela Venkaiah G <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Leela Venkaiah G <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Leela Venkaiah G <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Leela Venkaiah G <[email protected]>
provider sends the ceph client secret name to onboarded consumer as gRPC response, however if both provider & client operators running in same namespaces the secrets referred will collide. So, we'll send different secret names with same content to be created by client. Signed-off-by: Leela Venkaiah G <[email protected]>
@nb-ohad @Madhu-1 only fyi... this is the provider content which was in main for 4.16 @iamniting could you pls approve? thanks. |
@leelavg Have all cherry-picks been thoroughly handled, ensuring there are no broken ones? Can I simply approve the backport? |
yes, I counted & checked the commits a couple of times, there should be 32 for provider mode and those checks out release-4.16...main, I don't remember anyone else other than me & Rohan committing changes for provider mode. |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: iamniting, leelavg 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 |
88c8da8
into
red-hat-storage:release-4.16
@leelavg: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged: Bugzilla bug 2276055 has been moved to the MODIFIED state. 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 kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
Manualy cherry-pick of #2547, #2563, #2550, #2568, #2573, #2570, #2569, #2571.
They are tightly coupled and couldn't be cherry-picked one by one. Majority of the commits are rename of storageclassrequest to storagerequest and storageclient scope change from namespacescope to clusterscope.