✨Progression Probes for CER by dtfranz · Pull Request #2550 · operator-framework/operator-controller

dtfranz · 2026-03-10T13:13:11Z

Description

Provides an API which allows custom probe definitions to determine readiness of objects in the CER phases. Objects can be selected for in one of two ways: by GroupKind, or by Label (matchLabels and matchExpressions). They can then be tested via any of the following:

Condition
- Checks that the object has a condition matching the type and status provided
FieldsEqual
- Uses two provided field paths and checks for equality.
FieldValue
- Uses a provided field path and checks that the value is equal to the provided expected value.

Also modifies the existing Namespace and PersistentVolumeClaim probes to use the new FieldValue probe.

Reviewer Checklist

API Go Documentation
Tests: Unit Tests (and E2E Tests, if appropriate)
Comprehensive Commit Messages
Links to related GitHub Issue(s)

netlify · 2026-03-10T13:13:18Z

✅ Deploy Preview for olmv1 ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	`5b023a2`
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/olmv1/deploys/69bb4c8f79f40000083086c5
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-2550--olmv1.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration.

Copilot

Pull request overview

Adds support for user-defined spec.progressionProbes on ClusterExtensionRevision to gate phase progression based on custom assertions against rendered objects, with accompanying CRD/applyconfig updates and new e2e scenarios.

Changes:

Extend ClusterExtensionRevisionSpec with progressionProbes API types + deepcopy/applyconfig support.
Add CRD schema for progressionProbes to experimental manifests/Helm CRD.
Update the controller to build and attach user-defined progression probes to the boxcutter progress probe chain; add e2e scenarios for pass/fail behavior.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 13 out of 13 changed files in this pull request and generated 4 comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
test/e2e/features/revision.feature	Adds e2e scenarios covering progression probe pass/fail behavior (currently tagged `@WIP`).
manifests/experimental.yaml	Updates experimental CRD schema to include `spec.progressionProbes`.
manifests/experimental-e2e.yaml	Updates e2e experimental CRD schema to include `spec.progressionProbes`.
internal/operator-controller/controllers/clusterextensionrevision_controller.go	Builds user probes from `spec.progressionProbes` and adds them to the progress probe chain.
helm/olmv1/base/operator-controller/crd/experimental/olm.operatorframework.io_clusterextensionrevisions.yaml	Updates Helm CRD schema with `spec.progressionProbes`.
applyconfigurations/utils.go	Registers apply-configuration kinds for the new embedded types.
applyconfigurations/api/v1/progressionprobe.go	Generated apply-configuration for `ProgressionProbe`.
applyconfigurations/api/v1/probeselector.go	Generated apply-configuration for `ProbeSelector`.
applyconfigurations/api/v1/probeassertion.go	Generated apply-configuration for `ProbeAssertion`.
applyconfigurations/api/v1/fieldvalueprobe.go	Generated apply-configuration for `FieldValueProbe`.
applyconfigurations/api/v1/clusterextensionrevisionspec.go	Adds apply-configuration support for `spec.progressionProbes`.
api/v1/zz_generated.deepcopy.go	Adds deepcopy support for the new API structs/fields.
api/v1/clusterextensionrevision_types.go	Introduces the new API types and `spec.progressionProbes`.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

codecov · 2026-03-10T13:32:01Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 32.03883% with 140 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 67.87%. Comparing base (6f23a79) to head (5b023a2).
⚠️ Report is 21 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
api/v1/zz_generated.deepcopy.go	25.39%	47 Missing ⚠️
applyconfigurations/api/v1/assertion.go	0.00%	14 Missing ⚠️
applyconfigurations/utils.go	0.00%	12 Missing ⚠️
applyconfigurations/api/v1/objectselector.go	0.00%	11 Missing ⚠️
applyconfigurations/api/v1/progressionprobe.go	0.00%	11 Missing ⚠️
applyconfigurations/api/v1/conditionequalprobe.go	0.00%	8 Missing ⚠️
applyconfigurations/api/v1/fieldsequalprobe.go	0.00%	8 Missing ⚠️
applyconfigurations/api/v1/fieldvalueprobe.go	0.00%	8 Missing ⚠️
internal/operator-controller/applier/phase.go	72.41%	5 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
...controllers/clusterextensionrevision_controller.go	80.55%	6 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
... and 1 more

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #2550 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 68.60% 67.87% -0.73% 
==========================================
Files 131 137 +6 Lines 9330 9526 +196 ==========================================
+ Hits 6401 6466 +65 - Misses 2438 2569 +131 
Partials 491 491

Flag	Coverage Δ
e2e	`38.14% <0.00%> (-4.11%)`	⬇️
experimental-e2e	`51.16% <30.92%> (-0.42%)`	⬇️
unit	`52.91% <13.10%> (-0.90%)`	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 18 out of 18 changed files in this pull request and generated 7 comments.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 19 out of 19 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 comments.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

camilamacedo86

That seems great, but would be nice if we can:

a) Address as much as possible the issues reported by kube-lint-api
b) Address the Copilot comments as well. Seems that we have a few ones that are valid.

Could you please look on those?

camilamacedo86 · 2026-03-11T10:00:38Z

+
+
+
+


Why do we have those spaces ?
Was this doc generated with the tooling used or API?

This is auto-generated, so I don't know why it's adding these spaces...

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 19 out of 19 changed files in this pull request and generated 4 comments.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

perdasilva · 2026-03-16T16:14:04Z

@dtfranz this all looks good to me - I will put a hold on it to give Michael a change to review the doc strings

perdasilva · 2026-03-16T16:14:31Z

/hold until @michaelryanpeter gets a change to review the CRD docs

pedjak

just a small nit that could be addressed before lgtm

pedjak

/lgtm

openshift-ci · 2026-03-17T15:36:11Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: camilamacedo86, pedjak

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~~ [camilamacedo86,pedjak]

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

michaelryanpeter

I have a couple of style questions, that probably don't matter. There is only one passage that I found difficult to understand. IDK if my suggestions are accurate, but happy to chat if you have any questions.

michaelryanpeter · 2026-03-17T19:51:36Z

+| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| `type` _[SelectorType](#selectortype)_ | type is a required field which specifies the type of selector to use.<br />The allowed selector types are "GroupKind" and "Label".<br />When set to "GroupKind", all objects which match the specified group and kind will be selected.<br />When set to "Label", all objects which match the specified labels and/or expressions will be selected.<br /><opcon:experimental> | | Enum: [GroupKind Label] <br />Required: \{\} <br /> |
+| `groupKind` _[GroupKind](https://kubernetes.io/docs/reference/generated/kubernetes-api/v1.31/#groupkind-v1-meta)_ | groupKind specifies the group and kind of objects to select.<br />Required when type is "GroupKind".<br />Uses the kubernetes format specified here:<br />https://pkg.go.dev/k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/apis/meta/v1#GroupKind<br /><opcon:experimental> | | Optional: \{\} <br /> |
+| `label` _[LabelSelector](https://kubernetes.io/docs/reference/generated/kubernetes-api/v1.31/#labelselector-v1-meta)_ | label is the label selector definition.<br />Required when type is "Label".<br />A probe using a Label selector will be executed against every object matching the labels or expressions; thus it is<br />important to use care when using this type of selector. For instance, if objects of multiple Kind are selected<br />via labels then the probe is likely to fail when checking for particular fields or Condition types, since multiple<br />object Kinds are not likely to contain the same of each.<br />Uses the kubernetes format specified here:<br />https://pkg.go.dev/k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/apis/meta/v1#LabelSelector<br />Requires exactly one of matchLabels or matchExpressions.<br /><opcon:experimental> | | Optional: \{\} <br /> |


Suggested change
|`label`_[LabelSelector](https://kubernetes.io/docs/reference/generated/kubernetes-api/v1.31/#labelselector-v1-meta)_| label is the label selector definition. Required when type is "Label". A probe using a Label selector will be executed against every object matching the labels or expressions; thus it is important to use care when using this type of selector. For instance, if objects of multiple Kind are selected via labels then the probe is likely to fail when checking for particular fields or Condition types, since multiple object Kinds are not likely to contain the same of each. Uses the kubernetes format specified here: https://pkg.go.dev/k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/apis/meta/v1#LabelSelector Requires exactly one of matchLabels or matchExpressions. <opcon:experimental>|| Optional: \{\} |
|`label`_[LabelSelector](https://kubernetes.io/docs/reference/generated/kubernetes-api/v1.31/#labelselector-v1-meta)_| label is the label selector definition. Required when type is "Label". A probe using a Label selector will be executed against every object matching the labels or expressions; you must use care when using this type of selector. For example, if multiple Kind objects are selected via labels then the probe is likely to fail because the values of different Kind objects rarely share the same schema. The LabelSelector field uses the following Kubernetes format: https://pkg.go.dev/k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/apis/meta/v1#LabelSelector Requires exactly one of matchLabels or matchExpressions. <opcon:experimental>|| Optional: \{\} |

I found the previous version hard to understand, though I am not sure if these suggestions changed the meaning to much. Feel free to take what is useful and disregard the rest.

Here's what I was trying to convey - if it makes sense and you can think of some clearer wording I'd appreciate it!
When we select via labels, every object of every kind in the revision has the potential to match.
apiVersion: v1 kind: ServiceAccount metadata: labels: foo: bar --- apiVersion: v1 kind: ConfigMap metadata: labels: foo: bar data: foo: bar
In the above example, if we were to select for objects containing the label foo: bar, we would select both of those objects. Then, if our readiness test were to check that data.foo == bar, the ConfigMap would pass that test, but since the ServiceAccount does not share those fields it would never pass the readiness probe.
If a content creator were to incidentally match with a label shared across multiple object kinds in their bundle, then their content runs the risk of never fully rolling out because of this.

Regardless, I've pushed up your suggestions 👍

michaelryanpeter · 2026-03-17T19:55:52Z

+
+| Field | Description | Default | Validation |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| `type` _[SelectorType](#selectortype)_ | type is a required field which specifies the type of selector to use.<br />The allowed selector types are "GroupKind" and "Label".<br />When set to "GroupKind", all objects which match the specified group and kind will be selected.<br />When set to "Label", all objects which match the specified labels and/or expressions will be selected.<br /><opcon:experimental> | | Enum: [GroupKind Label] <br />Required: \{\} <br /> |


Nit: I am used to always putting specific API object references in backticks, so I would always use type, and Kind, Label, etc.
I know that this might be a downstream thing and differs from the Kubernetes style guide.
However, I don't understand is why the API objects are double quoted in this section and others simply use camelcase. Can you clarify?

In this particular case, I'm surrounding GroupKind and Label with "" because they are string literals. This was the convention I observed from the other union discriminators we have in, for example, clustercatalog_types.go (see: type CatalogSource). From what I can tell, using backticks around the field names like type is not common, at least not in the godocs - though they do show up inside the generated docs content like you highlighted above:
| `type` _[SelectorType](#selectortype)_ | type is a...

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying!

michaelryanpeter · 2026-03-18T14:54:15Z

/lgtm

perdasilva · 2026-03-18T15:16:46Z

/unhold
/lgtm
/override codecov/patch

openshift-ci · 2026-03-18T15:16:55Z

@perdasilva: Overrode contexts on behalf of perdasilva: codecov/patch

Details

In response to this:

/unhold
/lgtm
/override codecov/patch

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.

tmshort · 2026-03-18T17:55:12Z

What about the lint-api-diff job? @dtfranz @perdasilva

Provides an API which allows custom probe definitions to determine readiness of the CER phases. Objects can be selected for in one of two ways: by GroupKind, or by Label (matchLabels and matchExpressions). They can then be tested via any of: ConditionEqual, FieldsEqual, and FieldValue. ConditionEqual checks that the object has a condition matching the type and status provided. FieldsEqual uses two provided field paths and checks for equality. FieldValue uses a provided field path and checks that the value is equal to the provided expected value. Signed-off-by: Daniel Franz <dfranz@redhat.com>

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 20 out of 20 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

dtfranz · 2026-03-19T01:12:59Z

@tmshort the api-lint-diff is failing due to the nonpointerstructs rule which should be disabled. It's meant to only be run on native APIs, and is not intended for CRDs (ref #1, #2). Because of that I've now disabled it in this PR, so the linter should be passing once again.

perdasilva · 2026-03-19T07:45:34Z

/lgtm
/override codecov/patch

openshift-ci · 2026-03-19T07:45:40Z

@perdasilva: Overrode contexts on behalf of perdasilva: codecov/patch

Details

In response to this:

/lgtm
/override codecov/patch

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.

CopilotAI review requested due to automatic review settings March 10, 2026 13:13

openshift-ciBot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Mar 10, 2026

Copilotstarted reviewing on behalf of dtfranz March 10, 2026 13:13 View session

CopilotAI reviewed Mar 10, 2026
View reviewed changes

Comment threadinternal/operator-controller/controllers/clusterextensionrevision_controller.go Outdated
Comment threadapi/v1/clusterextensionrevision_types.go Outdated
Comment threadtest/e2e/features/revision.feature Outdated
Comment threadtest/e2e/features/revision.feature Outdated

dtfranz force-pushed the fieldvalue-user-probes branch from 3e0efb5 to c1ddbb3Compare March 11, 2026 06:39

dtfranz marked this pull request as ready for review March 11, 2026 06:41

CopilotAI review requested due to automatic review settings March 11, 2026 06:41

openshift-ciBot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Mar 11, 2026

openshift-ciBot requested review from joelanford and trgeiger March 11, 2026 06:41

Copilotstarted reviewing on behalf of dtfranz March 11, 2026 06:41 View session

dtfranz force-pushed the fieldvalue-user-probes branch from c1ddbb3 to d1436fdCompare March 11, 2026 06:45

CopilotAI reviewed Mar 11, 2026
View reviewed changes

dtfranz force-pushed the fieldvalue-user-probes branch from d1436fd to f905c9eCompare March 11, 2026 08:15

CopilotAI review requested due to automatic review settings March 11, 2026 08:52

dtfranz force-pushed the fieldvalue-user-probes branch from f905c9e to ca1b6beCompare March 11, 2026 08:52

Copilotstarted reviewing on behalf of dtfranz March 11, 2026 08:53 View session

CopilotAI reviewed Mar 11, 2026
View reviewed changes

Comment threadapi/v1/clusterextensionrevision_types.go Outdated
Comment threadapi/v1/clusterextensionrevision_types.go Outdated
Comment threadinternal/operator-controller/controllers/clusterextensionrevision_controller.go Outdated

camilamacedo86 previously requested changes Mar 11, 2026
View reviewed changes

openshift-ciBot assigned camilamacedo86 Mar 11, 2026

perdasilva reviewed Mar 11, 2026
View reviewed changes

Comment threadinternal/operator-controller/controllers/clusterextensionrevision_controller.go Outdated

dtfranz force-pushed the fieldvalue-user-probes branch from ca1b6be to a68ec4bCompare March 12, 2026 05:47

CopilotAI review requested due to automatic review settings March 12, 2026 06:02

dtfranz force-pushed the fieldvalue-user-probes branch from a68ec4b to 100629dCompare March 12, 2026 06:02

Copilotstarted reviewing on behalf of dtfranz March 12, 2026 06:02 View session

CopilotAI reviewed Mar 12, 2026
View reviewed changes

dtfranz force-pushed the fieldvalue-user-probes branch 2 times, most recently from b230589 to d1cb7c5Compare March 12, 2026 11:18

openshift-ciBot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Mar 16, 2026

pedjak reviewed Mar 17, 2026
View reviewed changes

Comment threadinternal/operator-controller/applier/phase.go Outdated

dtfranz force-pushed the fieldvalue-user-probes branch from 3dbd4af to 61be31aCompare March 17, 2026 13:38

pedjak approved these changes Mar 17, 2026
View reviewed changes

openshift-ciBot assigned pedjak Mar 17, 2026

openshift-ciBot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Mar 17, 2026

michaelryanpeter reviewed Mar 17, 2026
View reviewed changes

dtfranz force-pushed the fieldvalue-user-probes branch from 61be31a to 1dc1619Compare March 18, 2026 09:02

openshift-ciBot removed the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Mar 18, 2026

openshift-ciBot assigned michaelryanpeter Mar 18, 2026

openshift-ciBot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Mar 18, 2026

openshift-ciBot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Mar 18, 2026

openshift-ciBot assigned perdasilva Mar 18, 2026

CopilotAI review requested due to automatic review settings March 19, 2026 01:08

dtfranz force-pushed the fieldvalue-user-probes branch from 1dc1619 to 5b023a2Compare March 19, 2026 01:08

openshift-ciBot removed the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Mar 19, 2026

CopilotAI reviewed Mar 19, 2026
View reviewed changes

openshift-ciBot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Mar 19, 2026

openshift-merge-botBot merged commit 15303e1 into operator-framework:mainMar 19, 2026
31 of 32 checks passed

Uh oh!

Conversation

dtfranz commented Mar 10, 2026• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Description

Reviewer Checklist

Uh oh!

netlifyBot commented Mar 10, 2026• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

✅ Deploy Preview for olmv1 ready!

Uh oh!

CopilotAI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

codecovBot commented Mar 10, 2026• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

CopilotAI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

CopilotAI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

camilamacedo86 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

CopilotAI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

perdasilva commented Mar 16, 2026

Uh oh!

perdasilva commented Mar 16, 2026

Uh oh!

pedjak left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

pedjak left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

openshift-ciBot commented Mar 17, 2026

Uh oh!

michaelryanpeter left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dtfranz commented Mar 10, 2026•
edited
Loading

netlifyBot commented Mar 10, 2026•
edited
Loading

codecovBot commented Mar 10, 2026•
edited
Loading