🌱 Bump sigs.k8s.io/cluster-api to [email protected] #3206
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
cncf-cla: yes
chrischdi
added
tide/merge-method-squash
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
size/XL
|
/test help /hold for shadow tests |
|
@chrischdi: The specified target(s) for
The following commands are available to trigger optional jobs:
Use
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-sigs/prow repository. |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
do-not-merge/hold
|
/test pull-cluster-api-provider-vsphere-e2e-vcsim-govmomi-main |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
cncf-cla: yes
|
/test pull-cluster-api-provider-vsphere-e2e-vcsim-govmomi-main |
k8s-ci-robot
added
size/XXL
|
/test pull-cluster-api-provider-vsphere-e2e-vcsim-govmomi-main |
chrischdi
force-pushed
the
pr-bump-capi-to-main-20240926
branch
from
5cfef00
to
0e81594
Compare
|
/test pull-cluster-api-provider-vsphere-e2e-vcsim-govmomi-main |
chrischdi
force-pushed
the
pr-bump-capi-to-main-20240926
branch
from
0e81594
to
6fa4cdb
Compare
|
/test pull-cluster-api-provider-vsphere-e2e-vcsim-govmomi-main |
config/default/crd/bases/infrastructure.cluster.x-k8s.io_vsphereclusteridentities.yaml
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
/test pull-cluster-api-provider-vsphere-e2e-vcsim-govmomi-main |
|
/test pull-cluster-api-provider-vsphere-test-main to get more data. Test results looked a bit strange for a flake though (https://prow.k8s.io/view/gs/kubernetes-jenkins/pr-logs/pull/kubernetes-sigs_cluster-api-provider-vsphere/3206/pull-cluster-api-provider-vsphere-test-main/1839613278108520448) |
|
Not a flake, expected change due to merged foreground deletion :-) |
|
Definitely not a flake, but the unit test failures weren't expected because of foreground deletion right? https://prow.k8s.io/view/gs/kubernetes-jenkins/pr-logs/pull/kubernetes-sigs_cluster-api-provider-vsphere/3206/pull-cluster-api-provider-vsphere-test-main/1839618109850259456 |
nope, they are due to kubebuilder bump |
|
/test pull-cluster-api-provider-vsphere-e2e-vcsim-govmomi-main |
|
/test pull-cluster-api-provider-vsphere-e2e-vcsim-govmomi-main |
|
/test pull-cluster-api-provider-vsphere-e2e-vcsim-govmomi-main |
|
@chrischdi: The following test failed, say
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-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
| @@ -92,7 +93,7 @@ func setup() { | |||
| panic(fmt.Sprintf("unable to setup ClusterCacheTracker: %v", err)) | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| controllerOpts := controller.Options{MaxConcurrentReconciles: 10} | |||
| controllerOpts := controller.Options{MaxConcurrentReconciles: 10, SkipNameValidation: ptr.To(true)} | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Out of curiosity, why do we need this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
controller-runtime added a new safeguard and it had to be done with a package-level singleton.
Basically if two controllers are build with the same name the second one will fail.
This was done to ensure that nobody builds & uses two controllers with the same name (to ensure unique metrics & logs).
Unfortunately that is a bit annoying in tests if controllers are build with the same name sequentially (package-level singleton detects that)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What this PR does / why we need it:
Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in
fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):Fixes #