-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 64
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
Bump dependencies #267
Bump dependencies #267
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Nahshon Unna-Tsameret <nunnatsa@redhat.com>
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: nunnatsa 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 |
/ok-to-test |
6251d7e
to
a78aab0
Compare
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 6584385022
💛 - Coveralls |
33532bf
to
53601a7
Compare
this PR does a bit more than just bumping dependencies. |
@agradouski - there is no logic change. All the code changes are required by API changes in the bumped modules. I don't know how to split it to smaller commits, if I want any commit to be compile-able. |
kubevirtci
Outdated
export KUBEVIRT_PROVIDER=${KUBEVIRT_PROVIDER:-k8s-1.27} | ||
export TENANT_CLUSTER_KUBERNETES_VERSION=${TENANT_CLUSTER_KUBERNETES_VERSION:-v1.27.6} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
i don't think we have a ubuntu image for v1.27 yet. The highest image i see is quay.io/capk/ubuntu-2004-container-disk:v1.26.0
if !reflect.DeepEqual(old.Spec, requested.Spec) { | ||
return errors.New(immutableWarning) | ||
} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We don't need to do this for this PR. But if all we care about is immutability (which appears to be the case) we can enforce this on the CRD now with CEL, and avoid a webhook entirely.
Yeah, there are a few things going on here. Here's some further context. The primary goal of this PR is to bump the dependencies. In attempting to bump the dependences @nunnatsa discovered a conflict between So, in order to update the core k8s dependences for the capk controllers without entering into dependency hell, Nahshon separated the dependences for the e2e tests and capk controllers. This removed us from having to have In all, his changes are...
|
Fix the code to use new APIs in the updated dependencies. Signed-off-by: Nahshon Unna-Tsameret <nunnatsa@redhat.com>
cf68dfc
to
5538aed
Compare
d063fbf
to
6bec738
Compare
Remove the "creates a simple cluster with ephemeral VMs with Passt" e2e test, as it's not needed anymore. Signed-off-by: Nahshon Unna-Tsameret <nunnatsa@redhat.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
/lgtm
I updated the description of the PR to better reflect the work that is being done here. This PR is important because it gives us the ability more easily bump dependencies in the future for the controllers while not conflicting with some of the dependencies required for our e2e tests.
The primary goal of this PR is to bump the dependencies. In attempting to bump the dependences @nunnatsa discovered a conflict between kubevirt/client-go and updating the core k8s depenedences. Upon further inspection, it was determined that we only needed the kubevirt/client-go package for our e2e tests, and not the capk controllers themselfs.
So, in order to update the core k8s dependences for the capk controllers without entering into dependency hell, Nahshon separated the dependences for the e2e tests and capk controllers. This removed us from having to have kubevirt/client-go in our primary go.mod file.
In all, his changes are...