Skip to content
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

Merged

Conversation

sbueringer
Copy link
Member

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

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. label Feb 6, 2023
@sbueringer
Copy link
Member Author

/assign @fabriziopandini @CecileRobertMichon

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. label Feb 6, 2023
@sbueringer sbueringer force-pushed the pr-note-clusterctl-upgrade branch from 76f5a96 to 79aa9e1 Compare February 7, 2023 17:05
@killianmuldoon
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm
with the updated text

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Feb 7, 2023
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: 175e50dd0856639daf9e31e4f905ad34de39d183

@sbueringer sbueringer force-pushed the pr-note-clusterctl-upgrade branch from 79aa9e1 to 53404c9 Compare February 15, 2023 13:12
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Feb 15, 2023
Signed-off-by: Stefan Büringer buringerst@vmware.com
@sbueringer sbueringer force-pushed the pr-note-clusterctl-upgrade branch from 53404c9 to a918c38 Compare February 15, 2023 13:13
@sbueringer
Copy link
Member Author

sbueringer commented Feb 15, 2023

@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).
We rewrote the note and added a table to make the underlying idea more understandable

(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
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
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.

Copy link
Member Author

@sbueringer sbueringer Feb 15, 2023

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.

Copy link
Member

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

@sbueringer sbueringer changed the title 📖 Add note about clusterctl skip-level upgrades 📖 Add note about clusterctl upgrade test coverage Feb 15, 2023
Copy link
Member

@fabriziopandini fabriziopandini left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

/lgtm
/approve

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Feb 19, 2023
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: 9fbab7d3fa91931e7a3707cde5618f2dcb04eb80

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[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 /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Feb 19, 2023
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit 3809194 into kubernetes-sigs:main Feb 19, 2023
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added this to the v1.4 milestone Feb 19, 2023
@sbueringer sbueringer deleted the pr-note-clusterctl-upgrade branch February 19, 2023 12:23
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants