MCO-483: generate machineconfiguration (MCO) clients as part of MCO API migration #243

jkyros · 2023-06-15T19:46:11Z

This generates the clients matching openshift/api#1453. Once that one merges, I will come back and update the vendoring and try to get this one in.

This does include a hack/workaround for the MCO having an embedded ObjectReference (see: #243 (review)) which the MCO intends to address during 4.15. I've created MCO-726 to track the API cleanup and removal of this hack.

Closes: MCO-483

openshift-ci-robot · 2023-06-15T19:46:14Z

@jkyros: This pull request references MCO-483 which is a valid jira issue.

In response to this:

Ignore this for now, just getting ready so that once openshift/api#1453 merges, we can come back and do the clients.

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 · 2023-06-15T19:46:16Z

Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request.
If you want CI signal for your change, please convert it to an actual PR.
You can still manually trigger a test run with /test all

jkyros · 2023-06-15T19:46:25Z

/test all

jkyros · 2023-08-07T15:13:53Z

/test all

jkyros · 2023-08-07T16:39:47Z

/test all

jkyros · 2023-08-07T18:04:05Z

/test all

jkyros · 2023-08-07T18:58:43Z

hack/update-codegen.sh

+    echo "Generating applyconfigurations specifically for MCO"
    applyconfigurationgen_external_apis_csv="$(codegen::join , "${FQ_APIS[@]}")"
    applyconfigurations_package="${OUTPUT_PKG}/${CLIENTSET_PKG_NAME:-applyconfigurations}"
    ${APPLYCONFIGURATION_GEN}  \
      --output-package "${applyconfigurations_package}" \
      --input-dirs "${applyconfigurationgen_external_apis_csv}" \
+      --external-applyconfigurations k8s.io/api/core/v1.ObjectReference:k8s.io/client-go/applyconfigurations/core/v1 \


So the MCO embeds a corev1.ObjectReference here, which makes applyconfiguration-gen generate code that doesn't compile.

# github.com/openshift/client-go/machineconfiguration/applyconfigurations/machineconfiguration/v1 vendor/github.com/openshift/client-go/machineconfiguration/applyconfigurations/machineconfiguration/v1/machineconfigpoolstatusconfiguration.go:27:11: cannot use &value (value of type *string) as type string in assignment vendor/github.com/openshift/client-go/machineconfiguration/applyconfigurations/machineconfiguration/v1/machineconfigpoolstatusconfiguration.go:35:16: cannot use &value (value of type *string) as type string in assignment vendor/github.com/openshift/client-go/machineconfiguration/applyconfigurations/machineconfiguration/v1/machineconfigpoolstatusconfiguration.go:43:11: cannot use &value (value of type *string) as type string in assignment vendor/github.com/openshift/client-go/machineconfiguration/applyconfigurations/machineconfiguration/v1/machineconfigpoolstatusconfiguration.go:51:10: cannot use &value (value of type *types.UID) as type types.UID in assignment vendor/github.com/openshift/client-go/machineconfiguration/applyconfigurations/machineconfiguration/v1/machineconfigpoolstatusconfiguration.go:59:17: cannot use &value (value of type *string) as type string in assignment vendor/github.com/openshift/client-go/machineconfiguration/applyconfigurations/machineconfiguration/v1/machineconfigpoolstatusconfiguration.go:67:22: cannot use &value (value of type *string) as type string in assignment vendor/github.com/openshift/client-go/machineconfiguration/applyconfigurations/machineconfiguration/v1/machineconfigpoolstatusconfiguration.go:75:16: cannot use &value (value of type *string) as type string in assignment make: *** [Makefile:40: _build-machine-config-daemon] Error 2

It looks like applyconfiguration-gen includes the following as external by default (which I believe is why this is an issue with corev1.ObjectReference but not an issue with the metav1.TypeMeta/metav1.ObjectMeta embedded fields that seem to work:

k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/apis/meta/v1.TypeMeta:k8s.io/client-go/applyconfigurations/meta/v1, k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/apis/meta/v1.ObjectMeta:k8s.io/client-go/applyconfigurations/meta/v1, k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/apis/meta/v1.OwnerReference:k8s.io/client-go/applyconfigurations/meta/v1

If I add corev1.ObjectReference as external, and point it to its appyconfiguration:

k8s.io/api/core/v1.ObjectReference:k8s.io/client-go/applyconfigurations/core/v1

Everything generates right for the MCO, but it changes a bunch of the other packages that were originally generated without the presence of v1.ObjectReferenceApplyConfiguration , and that seems...not good...because they've already been working well for quite some time.

So...I only added it when we're generating for the MCO and left it out for everyone else?

This is the "additional damage" in other packages if I let them generate with corev1 as external: 3367954

It's curious that the MCO blows up but others haven't, is there any difference in how the object reference is being used in the other APIs? Pointer vs reference per chance?

There are examples in the API of both pointer/non-pointer usages, but ours is the only one that is embedded:

apps/v1/types.go: To corev1.ObjectReference `json:"to" protobuf:"bytes,2,opt,name=to"` apps/v1/types.go: From corev1.ObjectReference `json:"from" protobuf:"bytes,3,opt,name=from"` apps/v1/types.go: From corev1.ObjectReference `json:"from" protobuf:"bytes,1,opt,name=from"` apps/v1/types.go: From corev1.ObjectReference `json:"from" protobuf:"bytes,1,opt,name=from"` authorization/v1/types.go: Subjects []corev1.ObjectReference `json:"subjects" protobuf:"bytes,4,rep,name=subjects"` authorization/v1/types.go: RoleRef corev1.ObjectReference `json:"roleRef" protobuf:"bytes,5,opt,name=roleRef"` authorization/v1/types.go: Subjects []corev1.ObjectReference `json:"subjects" protobuf:"bytes,4,rep,name=subjects"` authorization/v1/types.go: RoleRef corev1.ObjectReference `json:"roleRef" protobuf:"bytes,5,opt,name=roleRef"` build/v1/types.go: FromRef *corev1.ObjectReference `json:"fromRef,omitempty" protobuf:"bytes,2,opt,name=fromRef"` build/v1/types.go: Config *corev1.ObjectReference `json:"config,omitempty" protobuf:"bytes,9,opt,name=config"` build/v1/types.go: From corev1.ObjectReference `json:"from" protobuf:"bytes,1,opt,name=from"` build/v1/types.go: From corev1.ObjectReference `json:"from" protobuf:"bytes,1,opt,name=from"` build/v1/types.go: From *corev1.ObjectReference `json:"from,omitempty" protobuf:"bytes,1,opt,name=from"` build/v1/types.go: From corev1.ObjectReference `json:"from" protobuf:"bytes,1,opt,name=from"` build/v1/types.go: To *corev1.ObjectReference `json:"to,omitempty" protobuf:"bytes,1,opt,name=to"` build/v1/types.go: From *corev1.ObjectReference `json:"from,omitempty" protobuf:"bytes,2,opt,name=from"` build/v1/types.go: TriggeredByImage *corev1.ObjectReference `json:"triggeredByImage,omitempty" protobuf:"bytes,3,opt,name=triggeredByImage"` build/v1/types.go: From *corev1.ObjectReference `json:"from,omitempty" protobuf:"bytes,4,opt,name=from"` image/v1/types.go: From *corev1.ObjectReference `json:"from,omitempty" protobuf:"bytes,3,opt,name=from"` image/v1/types.go: From corev1.ObjectReference `json:"from" protobuf:"bytes,1,opt,name=from"` image/v1/types.go: From corev1.ObjectReference `json:"from" protobuf:"bytes,1,opt,name=from"` machine/v1beta1/types_machinehealthcheck.go: RemediationTemplate *corev1.ObjectReference `json:"remediationTemplate,omitempty"` machine/v1beta1/types_machine.go: NodeRef *corev1.ObjectReference `json:"nodeRef,omitempty"` security/v1/types.go: AllowedBy *corev1.ObjectReference `json:"allowedBy,omitempty" protobuf:"bytes,1,opt,name=allowedBy"` template/v1/types.go: Ref corev1.ObjectReference `json:"ref,omitempty" protobuf:"bytes,1,opt,name=ref"` template/v1/types.go: TemplateInstance corev1.ObjectReference `json:"templateInstance" protobuf:"bytes,1,opt,name=templateInstance"` template/v1/types.go: Secret corev1.ObjectReference `json:"secret" protobuf:"bytes,2,opt,name=secret"` user/v1/types.go: User corev1.ObjectReference `json:"user" protobuf:"bytes,4,opt,name=user"` user/v1/types.go: Identity corev1.ObjectReference `json:"identity,omitempty" protobuf:"bytes,2,opt,name=identity"` user/v1/types.go: User corev1.ObjectReference `json:"user,omitempty" protobuf:"bytes,3,opt,name=user"`

vs

machineconfiguration/v1/types.go: PullSecret *corev1.ObjectReference `json:"pullSecret,omitempty" protobuf:"bytes,9,opt,name=pullSecret"` ---> machineconfiguration/v1/types.go: corev1.ObjectReference `json:",inline" protobuf:"bytes,1,rep,name=objectReference"` machineconfiguration/v1/types.go: Source []corev1.ObjectReference `json:"source,omitempty" protobuf:"bytes,2,rep,name=source"`

Ahh, right, in general for APIs we try to avoid embedding structs like that, but, it's done now.

In theory you could change the go type without causing serialization errors, copying the fields from the object reference into the parent struct, that would mean you don't have this hack any more.

Also, we should remove the protobuf tags, they aren't used for CRDs

In theory you could change the go type without causing serialization errors, copying the fields from the object reference into the parent struct, that would mean you don't have this hack any more.

Something like this? https://gist.github.com/jkyros/db4d27fb28b38fa2ea170164ebfabae9#file-hypothetical_atrocity-go That feels like it should be a crime 😛 I think it would work, but there is stuff in the MCO that cares that it's an ObjectReference (mostly tests) and we'd need to defuse all of that.

Would you entertain letting us keep this PR's MCO-only applyconfig hack for now (or something similar -- I don't want to make your update script ugly) until we can do some rearrangement? The applyconfigurations generated by this hack do seem to be proper and work, e.g. https://gist.github.com/jkyros/db4d27fb28b38fa2ea170164ebfabae9#file-main-go

Yeah the gist looks like what I meant. Since the serialization is the same, it's fine for a CRD to make a change like that to the go type, I got second opinions on that and a few of us are in agreement 😅

I'm happy to let you carry on like this, but, can we stick a pin in this to fix it before the end of 4.15? I'd like a TODO to remove this hack

openshift-ci-robot · 2023-08-11T19:48:21Z

@jkyros: This pull request references MCO-483 which is a valid jira issue.

In response to this:

This generates the clients matching openshift/api#1453. Once it merges, I will come back and update the vendoring once openshift/api#1453 merges.

This does include a hack/workaround for the MCO having an embedded ObjectReference (see: #243 (review)) which the MCO intends to adress during 4.15.

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 · 2023-08-11T19:55:31Z

@jkyros: This pull request references MCO-483 which is a valid jira issue.

In response to this:

This generates the clients matching openshift/api#1453. Once that one merges, I will come back and update the vendoring and try to get this one in.

This does include a hack/workaround for the MCO having an embedded ObjectReference (see: #243 (review)) which the MCO intends to adress during 4.15.

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 · 2023-08-11T20:15:18Z

@jkyros: This pull request references MCO-483 which is a valid jira issue.

In response to this:

This generates the clients matching openshift/api#1453. Once that one merges, I will come back and update the vendoring and try to get this one in.

This does include a hack/workaround for the MCO having an embedded ObjectReference (see: #243 (review)) which the MCO intends to address during 4.15. I've created MCO-726 to track the API cleanup and removal of this hacks.

Closes: MCO-483

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 · 2023-08-11T20:20:27Z

@jkyros: This pull request references MCO-483 which is a valid jira issue.

In response to this:

This generates the clients matching openshift/api#1453. Once that one merges, I will come back and update the vendoring and try to get this one in.

This does include a hack/workaround for the MCO having an embedded ObjectReference (see: #243 (review)) which the MCO intends to address during 4.15. I've created MCO-726 to track the API cleanup and removal of this hack.

Closes: MCO-483

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.

jkyros · 2023-08-11T21:10:10Z

/test all

The MCO's API unfortunately has embedded a corev1.ObjectReference for years. As part of the MCO's API migration, we tried to generate clients, but this resulted in broken applyconfigurations for the MCO, because applyconfiguration-gen doesn't regard the corev1.ObjectReference as an external type without being explicitly specified, so when it calculates "reachability" of the type, it's not in the list. This commit adds machineconfiguration to the list of packages for generation, and also temporarily splits the MCO's applyconfiguration-gen commands out into a special MCO-only block so it can reference corev1 as external and generate properly without affecting generation for the other packages here -- at least until the MCO can get rid of that embedded reference.

openshift-ci · 2023-10-02T15:03:19Z

@jkyros: all tests passed!

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/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

jkyros · 2023-10-02T17:15:14Z

Alright, this should be ready now too. I've taken out the replace directive that pointed at my branch, this is successfully generating against the API that was merged in openshift/api#1453.

JoelSpeed · 2023-10-03T09:14:02Z

hack/update-codegen.sh

+    # TODO(jkyros): this is a temporary hack to ensure proper generation until the MCO can sort
+    # out their embedded corev1.ObjectReference in MachineConfigPoolStatusConfiguration, which needs
+    # to be resolved by the end of release-4.15 so this hack can be removed


Is this being tracked?

Yes, I created MCO-726 for this purpose. Since we're in 4.15 now I moved it into our API migration epic, so it will be required to be completed in order for MCO to close the epic 😄

JoelSpeed · 2023-10-05T12:06:00Z

/lgtm

openshift-ci-robot · 2023-10-05T12:09:20Z

@jkyros: This pull request references MCO-483 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 "4.15.0" version, but no target version was set.

In response to this:

This generates the clients matching openshift/api#1453. Once that one merges, I will come back and update the vendoring and try to get this one in.

This does include a hack/workaround for the MCO having an embedded ObjectReference (see: #243 (review)) which the MCO intends to address during 4.15. I've created MCO-726 to track the API cleanup and removal of this hack.

Closes: MCO-483

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 · 2023-10-05T12:11:31Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

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

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:

~~OWNERS~~ [JoelSpeed]

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

openshift-ci-robot · 2023-10-05T12:11:50Z

@jkyros: This pull request references MCO-483 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 "4.15.0" version, but no target version was set.

In response to this:

This generates the clients matching openshift/api#1453. Once that one merges, I will come back and update the vendoring and try to get this one in.

This does include a hack/workaround for the MCO having an embedded ObjectReference (see: #243 (review)) which the MCO intends to address during 4.15. I've created MCO-726 to track the API cleanup and removal of this hack.

Closes: MCO-483

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.

MCO-483: generate machineconfiguration (MCO) clients as part of MCO API migration Signed-off-by: Charlie Doern <[email protected]>

openshift-ci-robot added the jira/valid-reference Indicates that this PR references a valid Jira ticket of any type. label Jun 15, 2023

openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Jun 15, 2023

jkyros mentioned this pull request Jun 15, 2023

MCO-52: add MCO API into openshift/api openshift/api#1453

Merged

openshift-merge-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jun 29, 2023

jkyros force-pushed the migrate-mco-api branch 2 times, most recently from dc41f6a to e5f854e Compare August 7, 2023 15:13

openshift-merge-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Aug 7, 2023

jkyros force-pushed the migrate-mco-api branch from e5f854e to 6a08036 Compare August 7, 2023 16:39

jkyros force-pushed the migrate-mco-api branch from 6a08036 to bf3c410 Compare August 7, 2023 18:03

jkyros commented Aug 7, 2023

View reviewed changes

jkyros changed the title ~~[WIP]MCO-483: generate machineconfiguration (MCO) clients as part of MCO API migration~~ MCO-483: generate machineconfiguration (MCO) clients as part of MCO API migration Aug 8, 2023

jkyros force-pushed the migrate-mco-api branch from bf3c410 to d154d1e Compare August 11, 2023 19:35

openshift-merge-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Aug 11, 2023

jkyros force-pushed the migrate-mco-api branch from d154d1e to 303616e Compare August 11, 2023 19:45

openshift-merge-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Aug 11, 2023

jkyros force-pushed the migrate-mco-api branch from 303616e to d1f02b9 Compare August 11, 2023 21:36

jkyros mentioned this pull request Aug 15, 2023

MCO-593: Consume MCO API and CRDs from openshift/api openshift/machine-config-operator#3747

Merged

jkyros marked this pull request as ready for review August 15, 2023 05:32

openshift-ci bot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Aug 15, 2023

openshift-ci bot requested review from JoelSpeed and mfojtik August 15, 2023 05:32

jkyros force-pushed the migrate-mco-api branch from d1f02b9 to 91ea131 Compare September 28, 2023 02:39

jkyros force-pushed the migrate-mco-api branch 2 times, most recently from 4d88844 to d08116b Compare September 28, 2023 21:26

jkyros added 2 commits October 2, 2023 09:19

vendor in mco api

a11014f

make generate

c7f9314

jkyros force-pushed the migrate-mco-api branch from d08116b to c7f9314 Compare October 2, 2023 14:39

JoelSpeed reviewed Oct 3, 2023

View reviewed changes

openshift-ci bot assigned JoelSpeed Oct 5, 2023

openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 5, 2023

openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Oct 5, 2023

openshift-ci bot merged commit e81400b into openshift:master Oct 5, 2023

cdoern pushed a commit to cdoern/client-go that referenced this pull request Oct 10, 2023

Merge pull request openshift#243 from jkyros/migrate-mco-api

a08838c

MCO-483: generate machineconfiguration (MCO) clients as part of MCO API migration Signed-off-by: Charlie Doern <[email protected]>

cdoern pushed a commit to cdoern/client-go that referenced this pull request Oct 11, 2023

Merge pull request openshift#243 from jkyros/migrate-mco-api

4020e08

MCO-483: generate machineconfiguration (MCO) clients as part of MCO API migration Signed-off-by: Charlie Doern <[email protected]>

cdoern pushed a commit to cdoern/client-go that referenced this pull request Oct 11, 2023

Merge pull request openshift#243 from jkyros/migrate-mco-api

db33a13

MCO-483: generate machineconfiguration (MCO) clients as part of MCO API migration Signed-off-by: Charlie Doern <[email protected]>

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

MCO-483: generate machineconfiguration (MCO) clients as part of MCO API migration #243

MCO-483: generate machineconfiguration (MCO) clients as part of MCO API migration #243

jkyros commented Jun 15, 2023 •

edited

Loading

openshift-ci-robot commented Jun 15, 2023 •

edited by openshift-ci bot

Loading

openshift-ci bot commented Jun 15, 2023

jkyros commented Jun 15, 2023

jkyros commented Aug 7, 2023

jkyros commented Aug 7, 2023

jkyros commented Aug 7, 2023

jkyros Aug 7, 2023 •

edited

Loading

jkyros Aug 7, 2023

JoelSpeed Aug 8, 2023

jkyros Aug 8, 2023

JoelSpeed Aug 10, 2023

jkyros Aug 11, 2023 •

edited

Loading

JoelSpeed Aug 11, 2023

openshift-ci-robot commented Aug 11, 2023 •

edited by openshift-ci bot

Loading

openshift-ci-robot commented Aug 11, 2023 •

edited by openshift-ci bot

Loading

openshift-ci-robot commented Aug 11, 2023 •

edited by openshift-ci bot

Loading

openshift-ci-robot commented Aug 11, 2023 •

edited by openshift-ci bot

Loading

jkyros commented Aug 11, 2023

openshift-ci bot commented Oct 2, 2023

jkyros commented Oct 2, 2023

JoelSpeed Oct 3, 2023

jkyros Oct 3, 2023 •

edited

Loading

JoelSpeed commented Oct 5, 2023

openshift-ci-robot commented Oct 5, 2023 •

edited by openshift-ci bot

Loading

openshift-ci bot commented Oct 5, 2023

openshift-ci-robot commented Oct 5, 2023 •

edited by openshift-ci bot

Loading

MCO-483: generate machineconfiguration (MCO) clients as part of MCO API migration #243

MCO-483: generate machineconfiguration (MCO) clients as part of MCO API migration #243

Conversation

jkyros commented Jun 15, 2023 • edited Loading

openshift-ci-robot commented Jun 15, 2023 • edited by openshift-ci bot Loading

openshift-ci bot commented Jun 15, 2023

jkyros commented Jun 15, 2023

jkyros commented Aug 7, 2023

jkyros commented Aug 7, 2023

jkyros commented Aug 7, 2023

jkyros Aug 7, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jkyros Aug 7, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

JoelSpeed Aug 8, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jkyros Aug 8, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

JoelSpeed Aug 10, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jkyros Aug 11, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

JoelSpeed Aug 11, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

openshift-ci-robot commented Aug 11, 2023 • edited by openshift-ci bot Loading

openshift-ci-robot commented Aug 11, 2023 • edited by openshift-ci bot Loading

openshift-ci-robot commented Aug 11, 2023 • edited by openshift-ci bot Loading

openshift-ci-robot commented Aug 11, 2023 • edited by openshift-ci bot Loading

jkyros commented Aug 11, 2023

openshift-ci bot commented Oct 2, 2023

jkyros commented Oct 2, 2023

JoelSpeed Oct 3, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jkyros Oct 3, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

JoelSpeed commented Oct 5, 2023

openshift-ci-robot commented Oct 5, 2023 • edited by openshift-ci bot Loading

openshift-ci bot commented Oct 5, 2023

openshift-ci-robot commented Oct 5, 2023 • edited by openshift-ci bot Loading

jkyros commented Jun 15, 2023 •

edited

Loading

openshift-ci-robot commented Jun 15, 2023 •

edited by openshift-ci bot

Loading

jkyros Aug 7, 2023 •

edited

Loading

jkyros Aug 11, 2023 •

edited

Loading

openshift-ci-robot commented Aug 11, 2023 •

edited by openshift-ci bot

Loading

openshift-ci-robot commented Aug 11, 2023 •

edited by openshift-ci bot

Loading

openshift-ci-robot commented Aug 11, 2023 •

edited by openshift-ci bot

Loading

openshift-ci-robot commented Aug 11, 2023 •

edited by openshift-ci bot

Loading

jkyros Oct 3, 2023 •

edited

Loading

openshift-ci-robot commented Oct 5, 2023 •

edited by openshift-ci bot

Loading

openshift-ci-robot commented Oct 5, 2023 •

edited by openshift-ci bot

Loading