MON-4025: Add AlertmanagerMainConfig by marioferh · Pull Request #2148 · openshift/api

marioferh · 2025-01-15T14:54:57Z

Every component will be in a separated PR in order to improve review process

First PR: #1929
Related: Enhancements Proposal openshift/enhancements#1627

openshift-ci · 2025-01-15T14:55:03Z

Hello @marioferh! Some important instructions when contributing to openshift/api:
API design plays an important part in the user experience of OpenShift and as such API PRs are subject to a high level of scrutiny to ensure they follow our best practices. If you haven't already done so, please review the OpenShift API Conventions and ensure that your proposed changes are compliant. Following these conventions will help expedite the api review process for your PR.

marioferh · 2025-01-15T15:21:13Z

/hold

everettraven

A lot of the comments are centered around godoc. I'd recommend looking at https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/blob/master/dev-guide/api-conventions.md#write-user-readable-documentation-in-godoc for more information on what makes a good godoc that is helpful to users.

Another thing that stood out was multiple fields related to pod spec configuration - you may want to group those into a separate struct to have a single field that clearly denotes that the sub-fields in that object map directly to pod spec fields.

everettraven

Only got about halfway through the changes on this round, will circle back soon to review the rest.

everettraven

Another round of comments. Additionally, I would like to see tests added to ensure the API and validations you have are working as expected.

everettraven · 2025-05-08T14:30:14Z

+
+// AlertmanagerContainerResources defines simplified resource requirements for a container.
+type AlertmanagerContainerResources struct {
+	// cpu defines the CPU resource limits and requests.


Because not setting this could be harmful to the system, are there any defaults that we set on a users behalf?

JoelSpeed · 2025-05-09T11:22:30Z

+	//
+	// When omitted, this means the user has no opinion and the platform is left
+	// to choose reasonable defaults. These defaults are subject to change over time.
+	// The current default is `- operator: "Exists"` which means that all taints are tolerated.


Is that safe? Not even an API question, but, tolerating all taints is generally not something we would do for control plane components. There are many valid taints (uninitialized for the CCM, network not ready) that I would expect this pod not to tolerate

let me think about it

marioferh · 2025-05-13T15:58:22Z

Continue tomorrow with last comments

everettraven

Another round of comments.

I'd also like to see some integration tests put in place to flex your validations and user workflows. https://github.com/openshift/api?tab=readme-ov-file#defining-api-validation-tests

everettraven · 2025-05-20T19:48:51Z

+	// This field is only effective when the user workload Alertmanager instance is not enabled.
+	// If the user workload monitoring Alertmanager is enabled, this field is ignored.
+	// Required: This field must be specified.
+	// Allowed values are Selectable and None


well I did selectable and none instead of enable or disable, correct?
Sure. We generally discourage using Enable/Disable for terminology in favor of something more meaningful in the context of the API.
If None and "" semantically mean the same thing, there isn't really a reason to have the None enum value.
For example, if None literally meant no user-defined configurations are processed and "" meant that the platform had some default namespace(s) it looked at for user-defined configurations then those would be semantically different and warrant having different values.
Also, what does Selectable mean? Does this mean I, as a user, can choose which namespaces Alertmanager will look at for user-defined configs?

marioferh · 2025-06-02T16:30:20Z

#2148 (comment)
fixed

JoelSpeed · 2025-07-14T14:10:14Z

/lgtm

openshift-ci · 2025-07-14T14:10:59Z

@JoelSpeed: Overrode contexts on behalf of JoelSpeed: ci/prow/verify-crd-schema

Details

In response to this:

/override ci/prow/verify-crd-schema
Only incorrectly identified newly required fields (they have optional parents)

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.

openshift-ci · 2025-07-14T14:11:10Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: JoelSpeed, marioferh

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

~~OWNERS~~ [JoelSpeed]

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

openshift-ci-robot · 2025-07-14T15:41:33Z

/retest-required

Remaining retests: 0 against base HEAD 674ad74 and 2 for PR HEAD bcc4fc1 in total

marioferh · 2025-07-14T16:49:05Z

/retest-required

openshift-ci-robot · 2025-07-14T19:02:22Z

/retest-required

Remaining retests: 0 against base HEAD 674ad74 and 2 for PR HEAD bcc4fc1 in total

marioferh · 2025-07-15T08:47:48Z

/retest-required

marioferh · 2025-07-15T09:57:26Z

/retest-required

openshift-ci-robot · 2025-07-15T12:47:04Z

/retest-required

Remaining retests: 0 against base HEAD 674ad74 and 2 for PR HEAD bcc4fc1 in total

marioferh · 2025-07-15T14:03:33Z

/retest-required

marioferh · 2025-07-15T14:12:31Z

/test e2e-gcp

marioferh · 2025-07-15T14:14:11Z

/test okd-scos-e2e-aws-ovn

openshift-ci · 2025-07-15T17:39:57Z

@marioferh: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name	Commit	Details	Required	Rerun command
ci/prow/okd-scos-images	`c35227f`	link	true	`/test okd-scos-images`

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Details

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 · 2025-07-16T06:56:03Z

/retest-required

Remaining retests: 0 against base HEAD 674ad74 and 2 for PR HEAD bcc4fc1 in total

marioferh · 2025-07-16T07:24:24Z

/test okd-scos-e2e-aws-ovn

marioferh · 2025-07-16T09:30:48Z

/test okd-scos-e2e-aws-ovn

marioferh · 2025-07-16T10:05:11Z

/test minor-e2e-upgrade-minor

JoelSpeed · 2025-07-16T11:27:05Z

Minor upgrade seems to be affected by https://issues.redhat.com/browse/TRT-2190

/override ci/prow/minor-e2e-upgrade-minor

openshift-ci · 2025-07-16T11:27:26Z

@JoelSpeed: Overrode contexts on behalf of JoelSpeed: ci/prow/minor-e2e-upgrade-minor

Details

In response to this:

Minor upgrade seems to be affected by https://issues.redhat.com/browse/TRT-2190
/override ci/prow/minor-e2e-upgrade-minor

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.

marioferh · 2025-07-16T11:32:49Z

Minor upgrade seems to be affected by https://issues.redhat.com/browse/TRT-2190
/override ci/prow/minor-e2e-upgrade-minor

ty

openshift-bot · 2025-07-16T16:47:35Z

[ART PR BUILD NOTIFIER]

Distgit: ose-cluster-config-api
This PR has been included in build ose-cluster-config-api-container-v4.20.0-202507161450.p0.ge375905.assembly.stream.el9.
All builds following this will include this PR.

openshift-ciBot added the size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files. label Jan 15, 2025

openshift-ciBot requested review from JoelSpeed and bparees January 15, 2025 14:55

marioferh force-pushed the alertmanager_monitoring_api branch from c0d2965 to c35227fCompare January 15, 2025 15:21

openshift-ciBot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Jan 15, 2025

everettraven requested changes Jan 16, 2025
View reviewed changes

openshift-merge-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jan 26, 2025

marioferh force-pushed the alertmanager_monitoring_api branch 4 times, most recently from 450dd7b to a6d7bc9Compare April 30, 2025 08:11

openshift-merge-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Apr 30, 2025

everettraven reviewed May 1, 2025
View reviewed changes

marioferh force-pushed the alertmanager_monitoring_api branch 2 times, most recently from e062ce8 to ee3b854Compare May 6, 2025 10:38

everettraven reviewed May 6, 2025
View reviewed changes

marioferh force-pushed the alertmanager_monitoring_api branch 2 times, most recently from b324126 to d9fba48Compare May 7, 2025 11:34

everettraven reviewed May 8, 2025
View reviewed changes

JoelSpeed reviewed May 9, 2025
View reviewed changes

marioferh force-pushed the alertmanager_monitoring_api branch 3 times, most recently from d60f672 to b758adfCompare May 15, 2025 08:22

everettraven reviewed May 20, 2025
View reviewed changes

everettraven mentioned this pull request May 21, 2025
MON-4028: Add Metric server config #2322
Merged

everettraven reviewed May 27, 2025
View reviewed changes

openshift-ciBot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jul 14, 2025

openshift-merge-botBot merged commit e375905 into openshift:masterJul 16, 2025

bitoku mentioned this pull request Jul 16, 2025
OCPNODE-3121: Make FeatureGateImageVolume TechPreview #2403
Merged

marioferh changed the title ~~Monitoring API: Add AlertmanagerMainConfig~~MON-4025: Add AlertmanagerMainConfigSep 23, 2025

marioferh mentioned this pull request Apr 27, 2026
MON-4492: ClusterMonitoring alertmanagerConfig logic openshift/cluster-monitoring-operator#2889
Merged

marioferh mentioned this pull request May 21, 2026
MON-4565: Add enableUserAlertmanagerConfig to ClusterMonitoring API #2855
Merged

Uh oh!

Conversation

marioferh commented Jan 15, 2025

Uh oh!

openshift-ciBot commented Jan 15, 2025

Uh oh!

marioferh commented Jan 15, 2025

Uh oh!

everettraven left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

everettraven left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

everettraven left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

everettravenMay 8, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

JoelSpeedMay 9, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

marioferhMay 13, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

marioferh commented May 13, 2025

Uh oh!

everettraven left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

openshift-ciBot commented Jul 15, 2025•
edited
Loading