CLID-232,OCPBUGS-38339,OCPBUGS-38343,OCPBUGS-38233: Create release signature configmap #924

lmzuccarelli · 2024-09-12T08:21:34Z

Description

Add the release signature configmap for oc-mirror v2 (json format compatible with v1) to the cluster-resources folder of oc-mirror

This fix also addresses the bug fixes for OCPBUGS-38339 and OCPBUGS-38343

Type of change

Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
This change requires a documentation update

How Has This Been Tested?

Use the following imagesetconfig

apiVersion: mirror.openshift.io/v2alpha1
kind: ImageSetConfiguration
mirror:
  platform:
    channels:
    - name: stable-4.16
      minVersion: 4.16.0
      maxVersion: 4.16.0

Execute oc-mirror mirror to disk workflow

bin/oc-mirror --config clid-232.yaml file://clid-232 --v2

Now execute the disk to mirror workflow

bin/oc-mirror --config clid-232.yaml --from file://clid-232  docker://localhost:5000/clid-232 --v2 --tls-verify=false

Expected Outcome

Check the working-dir/cluster-resources folder there should be a files with naming convention signature-configmap.json and signature-configmap.yaml

To verify the contents of this field execute the following bash cli The working-dir/signatures/ folder has the same digest

cat working-dir/signatures/4.16.0-x86_64-sha256-3717338045df06e31effea46761b2c7e90f543cc4f00547af8158dd6aea868c3 | base64

The value output should match the contents of the config map (BinaryData section)

Verify the bug fixes

OCPBUGS-38339

In the jira ticket follow the steps to re-produce the bug, there should be no panic but an error with appropriate message

OCPBUGS-38343

Once the disk-to-mirror workflow has been executed , verify that here should be both json and yaml files (with configmap structure) in the directory "working-dir/cluster-resources"

OCPBUGS-38233

Once the disk-to-mirror workflow has been executed , verify that here should be both json and yaml files (with configmap structure) in the directory "working-dir/cluster-resources"

openshift-ci-robot · 2024-09-12T08:21:38Z

@lmzuccarelli: This pull request references CLID-232 which is a valid jira issue.

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.

lmzuccarelli · 2024-09-12T08:56:18Z

/retest

sherine-k

Hi @lmzuccarelli,
Thanks so much for the PR, I left a few comments, especially for go.work.sum.
Let' s discuss them together.

v2/internal/pkg/api/v2alpha1/type_configmap.go

v2/internal/pkg/release/signature.go

go.work.sum

openshift-ci-robot · 2024-09-16T12:49:17Z

@lmzuccarelli: This pull request references CLID-232 which is a valid jira issue.

This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-38339, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

bug is open, matching expected state (open)
bug target version (4.18.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.18.0)
bug is in the state New, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @zhouying7780

The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-38343, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

bug is open, matching expected state (open)
bug target version (4.18.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.18.0)
bug is in the state New, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @zhouying7780

The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

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.

openshift-ci-robot · 2024-09-16T13:09:49Z

@lmzuccarelli: This pull request references CLID-232 which is a valid jira issue.

This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-38339, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

bug is open, matching expected state (open)
bug target version (4.18.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.18.0)
bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @zhouying7780

This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-38343, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

bug is open, matching expected state (open)
bug target version (4.18.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.18.0)
bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @zhouying7780

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.

openshift-ci-robot · 2024-09-16T13:10:36Z

@lmzuccarelli: This pull request references CLID-232 which is a valid jira issue.

This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-38339, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

bug is open, matching expected state (open)
bug target version (4.18.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.18.0)
bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @zhouying7780

This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-38343, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

bug is open, matching expected state (open)
bug target version (4.18.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.18.0)
bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @zhouying7780

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.

openshift-ci-robot · 2024-09-16T14:28:23Z

@lmzuccarelli: This pull request references CLID-232 which is a valid jira issue.

This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-38339, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

bug is open, matching expected state (open)
bug target version (4.18.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.18.0)
bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @zhouying7780

The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-38343, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

bug is open, matching expected state (open)
bug target version (4.18.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.18.0)
bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @zhouying7780

The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-38233, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

bug is open, matching expected state (open)
bug target version (4.18.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.18.0)
bug is in the state New, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @zhouying7780

The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

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.

openshift-ci-robot · 2024-09-16T14:31:08Z

@lmzuccarelli: This pull request references CLID-232 which is a valid jira issue.

This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-38339, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

bug is open, matching expected state (open)
bug target version (4.18.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.18.0)
bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @zhouying7780

This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-38343, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

bug is open, matching expected state (open)
bug target version (4.18.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.18.0)
bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @zhouying7780

This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-38233, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

bug is open, matching expected state (open)
bug target version (4.18.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.18.0)
bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @zhouying7780

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.

aguidirh · 2024-09-17T09:02:45Z

v2/internal/pkg/release/signature.go

+
+			cr := clusterresources.New(o.Log, o.Opts.Global.WorkingDir, o.Config, "")
+			err = cr.GenerateSignatureConfigMap(digest, id, data)
+			if err != nil {
+				o.Log.Error("%v", err)
+			}
+


Currently all the clusterresources are being generated in the executor.go, the generation of the SignaturesConfigMap could follow the same standard.

Here is an example:

oc-mirror/v2/internal/pkg/cli/executor.go

Line 781 in 8d037ba

if !o.Opts.IsDryRun {

Having the generation of the SignatureConfigMap in the executor could bring some benefits:

The SignatureConfigMap will be generated only if the workflow finished successfully (in the collector it will be always generated)

If the customer is running a dry run, having it in the executor.go will avoid the generation of the SignatureConfigMap (in the collector it will be always generated)

Having the clusterresources being generated at only one place is easy to maintain the code in the long term

Since the executor already has the dependency on the clusterresources pkg it is possible to avoid an additional dependency of the clusterresources pkg in the collector pkg

Having the release collector calling the clusterresources (write results) pkg directly will break the architecture defined here: https://github.com/openshift/oc-mirror/blob/main/v2/assets/architecture.png where the executor should be the responsible to call the clusterresources (write results)

sherine-k · 2024-09-17T12:21:12Z

v2/internal/pkg/clusterresources/clusterresources.go

+	}
+	// read the signatures directory
+	sigDir := filepath.Join(o.WorkingDir, signatureDir)
+	signatures, err := os.ReadDir(sigDir)


Hi @lmzuccarelli
Wouldn't we be creating configMaps for all the releases that were ever mirrored in this manner?
Another possibility here would be to use something similar to CatalogSourceGenerator: we could use the release image digests to track the signature files needed?
WDYT?

Yes - actually its simpler than that I''ll just add to the hashmap created for the BinaryData field . Good catch

sherine-k

Hi @lmzuccarelli
I like the separation of concerns much better this way!
Thanks

lmzuccarelli · 2024-09-18T12:53:49Z

/hold

lmzuccarelli · 2024-09-19T14:23:39Z

/unhold

openshift-ci-robot · 2024-09-20T11:20:08Z

@lmzuccarelli: This pull request references CLID-232 which is a valid jira issue.

This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-38339, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

bug is open, matching expected state (open)
bug target version (4.18.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.18.0)
bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @kasturinarra

This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-38343, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

bug is open, matching expected state (open)
bug target version (4.18.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.18.0)
bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @kasturinarra

This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-38233, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

bug is open, matching expected state (open)
bug target version (4.18.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.18.0)
bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @kasturinarra

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.

openshift-ci-robot · 2024-09-20T11:21:59Z

@lmzuccarelli: This pull request references CLID-232 which is a valid jira issue.

This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-38339, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

bug is open, matching expected state (open)
bug target version (4.18.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.18.0)
bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @kasturinarra

This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-38343, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

bug is open, matching expected state (open)
bug target version (4.18.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.18.0)
bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @kasturinarra

This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-38233, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

bug is open, matching expected state (open)
bug target version (4.18.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.18.0)
bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @kasturinarra

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.

openshift-ci-robot · 2024-09-20T11:23:23Z

@lmzuccarelli: This pull request references CLID-232 which is a valid jira issue.

This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-38339, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

bug is open, matching expected state (open)
bug target version (4.18.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.18.0)
bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @kasturinarra

This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-38343, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

bug is open, matching expected state (open)
bug target version (4.18.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.18.0)
bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @kasturinarra

This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-38233, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

bug is open, matching expected state (open)
bug target version (4.18.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.18.0)
bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @kasturinarra

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.

openshift-ci-robot · 2024-09-20T11:25:19Z

@lmzuccarelli: This pull request references CLID-232 which is a valid jira issue.

This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-38339, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

bug is open, matching expected state (open)
bug target version (4.18.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.18.0)
bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @kasturinarra

This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-38343, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

bug is open, matching expected state (open)
bug target version (4.18.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.18.0)
bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @kasturinarra

This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-38233, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

bug is open, matching expected state (open)
bug target version (4.18.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.18.0)
bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @kasturinarra

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.

openshift-ci-robot · 2024-09-20T11:25:58Z

@lmzuccarelli: This pull request references CLID-232 which is a valid jira issue.

This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-38339, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

bug is open, matching expected state (open)
bug target version (4.18.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.18.0)
bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @kasturinarra

This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-38343, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

bug is open, matching expected state (open)
bug target version (4.18.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.18.0)
bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @kasturinarra

This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-38233, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

bug is open, matching expected state (open)
bug target version (4.18.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.18.0)
bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @kasturinarra

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.

kasturinarra · 2024-09-20T12:02:21Z

Completed testing CLID-232 and found two issues, listing the same here:

After d2m the folder path shown for signature configmap is missing a / see here 024/09/20 11:39:57 [INFO] : [CLID-232](https://issues.redhat.com//browse/CLID-232)/working-dir/cluster-resourcessignature-configmap.json file created, 2024/09/20 11:39:57 [INFO] : [CLID-232](https://issues.redhat.com//browse/CLID-232)/working-dir/cluster-resourcessignature-configmap.yaml file created -> this looks to me as bug
Binary data contains sha256-3717338045df06e31effea46761b2c7e90f543cc4f00547af8158dd6aea868c3-1: only after that it contains the actual content when run cat working-dir/signatures/4.16.0-x86_64-sha256-3717338045df06e31effea46761b2c7e90f543cc4f00547af8158dd6aea868c3 | base64 and base64 also contains a = at the end
cc: @lmzuccarelli

lmzuccarelli · 2024-09-20T12:06:04Z

@kasturinarra - thanks for the feedback , I'll update and fix asap.

lmzuccarelli · 2024-09-21T06:01:35Z

@kasturinarra - I have updated as requested and addressed the version-arch prefix problem

sherine-k

Thanks @lmzuccarelli

v2/internal/pkg/mirror/options.go

v2/internal/pkg/release/signature.go

openshift-ci · 2024-09-23T07:22:36Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: lmzuccarelli, sherine-k

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~~ [lmzuccarelli,sherine-k]

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

aguidirh · 2024-09-23T08:04:19Z

/lgtm

openshift-ci · 2024-09-23T08:13:09Z

@lmzuccarelli: 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-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

openshift-ci-robot · 2024-09-23T08:17:27Z

@lmzuccarelli: Jira Issue OCPBUGS-38339: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged:

openshift/oc-mirror#924

Jira Issue OCPBUGS-38339 has been moved to the MODIFIED state.

Jira Issue OCPBUGS-38343: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged:

openshift/oc-mirror#924

Jira Issue OCPBUGS-38343 has been moved to the MODIFIED state.

Jira Issue OCPBUGS-38233: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged:

openshift/oc-mirror#924

Jira Issue OCPBUGS-38233 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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

openshift-bot · 2024-09-23T11:27:14Z

[ART PR BUILD NOTIFIER]

Distgit: oc-mirror-plugin
This PR has been included in build oc-mirror-plugin-container-v4.18.0-202409231040.p0.ga5a32fa.assembly.stream.el9.
All builds following this will include this PR.

…gnature configmap (openshift#924) * Update to address issues from review * Add yaml support * Update to move logic to executor * Update to tie release tag and digest for signature configmap * Update form QE feedback

openshift-ci-robot · 2024-09-30T08:16:07Z

@lmzuccarelli: Jira Issue OCPBUGS-38339 is in an unrecognized state (ON_QA) and will not be moved to the MODIFIED state.

Jira Issue OCPBUGS-38343: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged:

openshift/oc-mirror#924

Jira Issue OCPBUGS-38343 has been moved to the MODIFIED state.

Jira Issue OCPBUGS-38233 is in an unrecognized state (ON_QA) and will not be 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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

openshift-ci-robot added the jira/valid-reference Indicates that this PR references a valid Jira ticket of any type. label Sep 12, 2024

openshift-ci bot requested review from aguidirh and sherine-k September 12, 2024 08:23

openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Sep 12, 2024

lmzuccarelli force-pushed the CLID-232 branch from 0391217 to 2401c6d Compare September 12, 2024 09:00

sherine-k reviewed Sep 16, 2024

View reviewed changes

v2/internal/pkg/api/v2alpha1/type_configmap.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

v2/internal/pkg/release/signature.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

go.work.sum Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

openshift-merge-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Sep 16, 2024

lmzuccarelli changed the title ~~CLID-232: Create release signature configmap~~ CLID-232,OCPBUGS-38339,OCPBUGS-38343: Create release signature configmap Sep 16, 2024

openshift-ci-robot added jira/severity-moderate Referenced Jira bug's severity is moderate for the branch this PR is targeting. jira/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Jira bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. labels Sep 16, 2024

openshift-ci bot requested a review from zhouying7780 September 16, 2024 12:49

lmzuccarelli force-pushed the CLID-232 branch from 9c335c4 to 818ebf7 Compare September 16, 2024 13:02

openshift-merge-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Sep 16, 2024

lmzuccarelli force-pushed the CLID-232 branch from 818ebf7 to ae1d6a7 Compare September 16, 2024 13:04

Update to address issues from review

7d8abc5

lmzuccarelli force-pushed the CLID-232 branch from ae1d6a7 to 7d8abc5 Compare September 16, 2024 13:28

Add yaml support

9facfe3

lmzuccarelli changed the title ~~CLID-232,OCPBUGS-38339,OCPBUGS-38343: Create release signature configmap~~ CLID-232,OCPBUGS-38339,OCPBUGS-38343,OCPBUGS-38233: Create release signature configmap Sep 16, 2024

aguidirh suggested changes Sep 17, 2024

View reviewed changes

lmzuccarelli force-pushed the CLID-232 branch from 02fd1d3 to 783ff4b Compare September 17, 2024 11:54

sherine-k reviewed Sep 17, 2024

View reviewed changes

Update to move logic to executor

5849c94

lmzuccarelli force-pushed the CLID-232 branch from 783ff4b to 5849c94 Compare September 17, 2024 13:08

openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Sep 18, 2024

Update to tie release tag and digest for signature configmap

fa01e31

sherine-k mentioned this pull request Sep 19, 2024

v2 does not generate usable release signatures #917

Open

openshift-ci bot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Sep 19, 2024

openshift-ci bot requested a review from kasturinarra September 20, 2024 11:20

lmzuccarelli force-pushed the CLID-232 branch from bc04692 to 2076959 Compare September 20, 2024 14:01

sherine-k approved these changes Sep 23, 2024

View reviewed changes

v2/internal/pkg/mirror/options.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

v2/internal/pkg/release/signature.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Update form QE feedback

b251068

lmzuccarelli force-pushed the CLID-232 branch from 2076959 to b251068 Compare September 23, 2024 07:57

openshift-ci bot assigned aguidirh Sep 23, 2024

openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Sep 23, 2024

openshift-merge-bot bot merged commit a5a32fa into openshift:main Sep 23, 2024
5 checks passed

CLID-232,OCPBUGS-38339,OCPBUGS-38343,OCPBUGS-38233: Create release signature configmap #924

CLID-232,OCPBUGS-38339,OCPBUGS-38343,OCPBUGS-38233: Create release signature configmap #924

Conversation

lmzuccarelli commented Sep 12, 2024 • edited Loading

Description

Type of change

How Has This Been Tested?

Expected Outcome

openshift-ci-robot commented Sep 12, 2024 • edited by openshift-ci bot Loading

Description

Type of change

How Has This Been Tested?

Expected Outcome

lmzuccarelli commented Sep 12, 2024

sherine-k left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

openshift-ci-robot commented Sep 16, 2024 • edited by openshift-ci bot Loading

Description

Type of change

How Has This Been Tested?

Expected Outcome

openshift-ci-robot commented Sep 16, 2024 • edited by openshift-ci bot Loading

Description

Type of change

How Has This Been Tested?

Expected Outcome

openshift-ci-robot commented Sep 16, 2024 • edited by openshift-ci bot Loading

Description

Type of change

How Has This Been Tested?

Expected Outcome

openshift-ci-robot commented Sep 16, 2024 • edited by openshift-ci bot Loading

Description

Type of change

How Has This Been Tested?

Expected Outcome

openshift-ci-robot commented Sep 16, 2024 • edited by openshift-ci bot Loading

Description

Type of change

How Has This Been Tested?

Expected Outcome

aguidirh Sep 17, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

sherine-k Sep 17, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

lmzuccarelli Sep 17, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

sherine-k left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

lmzuccarelli commented Sep 18, 2024

lmzuccarelli commented Sep 19, 2024

openshift-ci-robot commented Sep 20, 2024 • edited by openshift-ci bot Loading

Description

Type of change

How Has This Been Tested?

Expected Outcome

openshift-ci-robot commented Sep 20, 2024 • edited by openshift-ci bot Loading

Description

Type of change

How Has This Been Tested?

Expected Outcome

openshift-ci-robot commented Sep 20, 2024 • edited by openshift-ci bot Loading

Description

Type of change

How Has This Been Tested?

Expected Outcome

openshift-ci-robot commented Sep 20, 2024 • edited by openshift-ci bot Loading

Description

Type of change

How Has This Been Tested?

Expected Outcome

openshift-ci-robot commented Sep 20, 2024 • edited by openshift-ci bot Loading

Description

Type of change

How Has This Been Tested?

Expected Outcome

kasturinarra commented Sep 20, 2024 • edited Loading

Completed testing CLID-232 and found two issues, listing the same here:

lmzuccarelli commented Sep 20, 2024

lmzuccarelli commented Sep 21, 2024

lmzuccarelli commented Sep 12, 2024 •

edited

Loading

openshift-ci-robot commented Sep 12, 2024 •

edited by openshift-ci bot

Loading

openshift-ci-robot commented Sep 16, 2024 •

edited by openshift-ci bot

Loading

openshift-ci-robot commented Sep 16, 2024 •

edited by openshift-ci bot

Loading

openshift-ci-robot commented Sep 16, 2024 •

edited by openshift-ci bot

Loading

openshift-ci-robot commented Sep 16, 2024 •

edited by openshift-ci bot

Loading

openshift-ci-robot commented Sep 16, 2024 •

edited by openshift-ci bot

Loading

openshift-ci-robot commented Sep 20, 2024 •

edited by openshift-ci bot

Loading

openshift-ci-robot commented Sep 20, 2024 •

edited by openshift-ci bot

Loading

openshift-ci-robot commented Sep 20, 2024 •

edited by openshift-ci bot

Loading

openshift-ci-robot commented Sep 20, 2024 •

edited by openshift-ci bot

Loading

openshift-ci-robot commented Sep 20, 2024 •

edited by openshift-ci bot

Loading

kasturinarra commented Sep 20, 2024 •

edited

Loading

openshift-ci-robot commented Sep 23, 2024 •

edited by openshift-ci bot

Loading

openshift-ci-robot commented Sep 30, 2024 •

edited by openshift-ci bot

Loading