-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
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
📖 Add note about clusterctl upgrade test coverage #8073
📖 Add note about clusterctl upgrade test coverage #8073
Conversation
/assign @fabriziopandini @CecileRobertMichon |
76f5a96
to
79aa9e1
Compare
/lgtm |
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: 175e50dd0856639daf9e31e4f905ad34de39d183
|
79aa9e1
to
53404c9
Compare
Signed-off-by: Stefan Büringer buringerst@vmware.com
53404c9
to
a918c38
Compare
@CecileRobertMichon @killianmuldoon @chrischdi @fabriziopandini We realized that we are actually testing a skip-level upgrade (the one from v1.2 => latest, as v1.2 is a supported release). (thx @fabriziopandini for pairing on this) |
<h1>Clusterctl upgrade test coverage</h1> | ||
|
||
Cluster API only tests a subset of possible clusterctl upgrade paths as otherwise the test matrix would be overwhelming. | ||
Untested upgrade paths are not blocked by clusterctl and should work in general, they are just not tested. Users |
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.
Untested upgrade paths are not blocked by clusterctl and should work in general, they are just not tested. Users | |
Untested upgrade paths are not blocked by clusterctl but they are just not tested. Users |
Nit, but I'm not sure about the grey area of "it should work, but it's not tested". Better IMO just to describe the state.
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.
Let's see what others think. I think the assurance that this is something that we expect to work out-of-the-box might be important to users.
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 can keep it as it is, given that the most important part is the next part about users doing their own validation if they want to rely on untested upgrade paths
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
/approve
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: 9fbab7d3fa91931e7a3707cde5618f2dcb04eb80
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: fabriziopandini 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 |
Signed-off-by: Stefan Büringer buringerst@vmware.com
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):Part of #8038