⚠ REMOVE extension api from main branch by acmenezes · Pull Request #820 · operator-framework/operator-controller

acmenezes · 2024-05-02T19:04:10Z

Description

The intent is to remove this API and its controllers for the v1.0.0 release. Once we've released 1.0.0, we plan to re-introduce the Extension API and controllers.

@joelanford, please take a look and tell me if that's what you had in mind. I did a flat removal of all the references to the api as well. Didn't try to circumvent or redesign around any errors. Any suggestions or changes are welcomed. Saving this as a draft PR to be safe.

My question, and I think it's an important one, would we pull the main branch's code to some secondary branch as a reference for after v1.0.0 before merging this if we plan to reintroduce it?

Solves #735

Reviewer Checklist

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

netlify · 2024-05-02T19:04:25Z

✅ Deploy Preview for olmv1 ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	`5f83813`
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/olmv1/deploys/66437b470d70e70008b3e7a8
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-820--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 site configuration.

codecov · 2024-05-02T19:10:48Z

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 66.66667% with 6 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 81.80%. Comparing base (6d73b73) to head (ca00f4a).

Files	Patch %	Lines
...nternal/controllers/clusterextension_controller.go	57.14%	4 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #820 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 71.02% 81.80% +10.78% 
===========================================
Files 17 15 -2 Lines 1301 907 -394 ===========================================
- Hits 924 742 -182 + Misses 304 120 -184 + Partials 73 45 -28

Flag	Coverage Δ
e2e	`59.75% <61.11%> (+17.02%)`	⬆️
unit	`73.76% <66.66%> (+10.16%)`	⬆️

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.

joelanford · 2024-05-03T18:03:48Z

I don't think we need to save the code off. The git history is there, so we can just come back to the commit prior to this PR if necessary.

But I suspect we don't even do that. I think it is more likely that we'll essentially copy ClusterExtension back over to Extension and make the few tweaks necessary for it to work as a namespace-scoped API. And we'll do a similar thing for the controller.

joelanford · 2024-05-03T18:04:30Z

-	// +optional
-	InstalledBundle *BundleMetadata `json:"installedBundle,omitempty"`
-	// +optional
-	ResolvedBundle *BundleMetadata `json:"resolvedBundle,omitempty"`
-


These should stay. If BundleMetadata is defined in extension_types.go, let's move those definitions to this file.

joelanford · 2024-05-03T18:05:46Z

- apiGroups:
- - kappctrl.k14s.io


We should remove the kapp dependency (I think you'll see breadcrumbs in Makefile and the install script template).

Cool. Thanks I will check on that one yet.

Hi @joelanford , I finally removed kapp from Makefile, install scripts and also from the scheme package I put on the last PR. I guess that should cover it. Let me know.

joelanford · 2024-05-03T18:06:51Z

 	// Lookup the bundle that corresponds to the ClusterExtension's desired package.
 	bundle, err := r.resolve(ctx, ext)
 	if err != nil {
- ext.Status.InstalledBundle = nil


Re: keeping these fields in ClusterExtension, we also want to keep the ClusterExtension reconciler logic intact.

Ok. Ack. Keeping it intact.

everettraven · 2024-05-07T18:32:02Z

 TypePackageDeprecated,
 TypeChannelDeprecated,
 TypeBundleDeprecated,
+ TypeProgressing,


Unit tests are probably failing due to the Progressing type being added to the set of conditions but it never being set on the ClusterExtension during the reconciliation process.
I would keep the type definitions for the condition and reasons but would remove them from the list here. IMO to keep the scope of this PR small, the implementation/usage of them should take place in #747

Hi @everettraven , actually it will fail another test and ask me to add it to the list. What I did was adding that to the list but then it requires me to actually set progressing status in the ClusterExtension controller. That part I'm honestly not sure if I did right. I appreciate some eyes on this. On the other hand if you really want to keep the type out of the list of conditions sets then we may have to change some tests. Happy to go either way. I count on your directions here.

Oh that is interesting. I didn't realize there was a test that we had the ensured those constants are added to the conditionsets.
I'm not sure this is really a valuable test for us at the moment. I'm not sure what the best path forward here is personally, maybe:
Merge ✨ remove extension-specific type checks #842
Rebase this PR on ^, so it essentially becomes shifting the logic around but the clusterextension_controller already uses everything so we don't have to fight with CI

Makes sense. I think we can talk about it on our meeting on Tuesday.

actually it will fail another test and ask me to add it to the list.
What was the specific test failure? I think @everettraven is correct that we should be able to let this status condition type be completely removed since it is currently only present in the Extension API.

@joelanford I think it is these test cases:
operator-controller/api/v1alpha1/clusterextension_types_test.go
Lines 18 to 63 in e9acbd3
funcTestClusterExtensionTypeRegistration(t*testing.T) {
types, err:=parseConstants("Type")
iferr!=nil {
t.Fatalf("unable to parse Type constants %v", err)
}
for_, tt:=rangetypes {
if!slices.Contains(conditionsets.ConditionTypes, tt) &&!slices.Contains(conditionsets.ExtensionConditionTypes, tt) {
t.Errorf("append Type%s to conditionsets.ConditionTypes in this package's init function", tt)
}
}
for_, tt:=rangeconditionsets.ConditionTypes {
if!slices.Contains(types, tt) {
t.Errorf("there must be a Type%[1]s string literal constant for type %[1]q (i.e. 'const Type%[1]s = %[1]q')", tt)
}
}
for_, tt:=rangeconditionsets.ExtensionConditionTypes {
if!slices.Contains(types, tt) {
t.Errorf("there must be a Type%[1]s string literal constant for type %[1]q (i.e. 'const Type%[1]s = %[1]q')", tt)
}
}
}
funcTestClusterExtensionReasonRegistration(t*testing.T) {
reasons, err:=parseConstants("Reason")
iferr!=nil {
t.Fatalf("unable to parse Reason constants %v", err)
}
for_, r:=rangereasons {
if!slices.Contains(conditionsets.ConditionReasons, r) &&!slices.Contains(conditionsets.ExtensionConditionReasons, r) {
t.Errorf("append Reason%s to conditionsets.ConditionReasons in this package's init function.", r)
}
}
for_, r:=rangeconditionsets.ConditionReasons {
if!slices.Contains(reasons, r) {
t.Errorf("there must be a Reason%[1]s string literal constant for reason %[1]q (i.e. 'const Reason%[1]s = %[1]q')", r)
}
}
for_, r:=rangeconditionsets.ExtensionConditionReasons {
if!slices.Contains(reasons, r) {
t.Errorf("there must be a Reason%[1]s string literal constant for reason %[1]q (i.e. 'const Reason%[1]s = %[1]q')", r)
}
}
}

everettraven

IMO the lint failures can be addressed via a //nolint:unused comment for now and be updated in #747 when they are used again.

This should help keep the scope of this PR smaller

acmenezes · 2024-05-07T20:34:20Z

IMO the lint failures can be addressed via a //nolint:unused comment for now and be updated in #747 when they are used again.
This should help keep the scope of this PR smaller

@everettraven good idea. I just added the comments there. I think no more lint issues are found. Thanks.

varshaprasad96

@acmenezes There is also a Kapp CRD in testdata: https://github.com/operator-framework/operator-controller/blob/b82812ea96a44eccc4ac4bd9bbfe8b023271130d/testdata/crds/kappctrl.k14s.io_app.yaml, could you also remove this please? Thanks!

varshaprasad96 · 2024-05-13T21:42:12Z

+	ReasonFailedToReachDesiredIntent = "FailedToReachDesiredIntent"
+	ReasonReachedDesiredIntent = "ReachedDesiredIntent"


IIRC these were related to upgrades and being used in extension-controller. These can be removed too.

everettraven

LGTM! Great work @acmenezes !

varshaprasad96

/lgtm
/approve

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 May 2, 2024

openshift-merge-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label May 2, 2024

joelanford reviewed May 3, 2024
View reviewed changes

Comment threadinternal/controllers/common_controller.go

acmenezes force-pushed the remove_extension branch from f45e655 to 02f0f7cCompare May 3, 2024 20:38

openshift-merge-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label May 3, 2024

acmenezes force-pushed the remove_extension branch from 02f0f7c to cc18928Compare May 6, 2024 20:41

everettraven reviewed May 7, 2024
View reviewed changes

acmenezes force-pushed the remove_extension branch 6 times, most recently from ca00f4a to b82812eCompare May 7, 2024 20:33

everettraven mentioned this pull request May 10, 2024
✨ remove extension-specific type checks #842
Merged

varshaprasad96 requested changes May 13, 2024
View reviewed changes

acmenezes force-pushed the remove_extension branch from b82812e to 2e30548Compare May 14, 2024 14:48

REMOVE extension api from main branch
5f83813

acmenezes force-pushed the remove_extension branch from 2e30548 to 5f83813Compare May 14, 2024 14:55

acmenezes marked this pull request as ready for review May 14, 2024 15:24

acmenezes requested a review from a team as a code owner May 14, 2024 15:24

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 May 14, 2024

everettraven approved these changes May 14, 2024
View reviewed changes

everettraven requested a review from varshaprasad96 May 14, 2024 16:59

varshaprasad96 approved these changes May 14, 2024
View reviewed changes

openshift-ciBot assigned varshaprasad96 May 14, 2024

openshift-ciBot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label May 14, 2024

everettraven added this pull request to the merge queue May 14, 2024

Merged via the queue into operator-framework:main with commit a458282May 14, 2024

acmenezes mentioned this pull request Jun 5, 2024
🐛REMOVE extension remaining CRD #911
Merged
4 tasks

	funcTestClusterExtensionTypeRegistration(t*testing.T) {
	types, err:=parseConstants("Type")
	iferr!=nil {
	t.Fatalf("unable to parse Type constants %v", err)
	}

	for_, tt:=rangetypes {
	if!slices.Contains(conditionsets.ConditionTypes, tt) &&!slices.Contains(conditionsets.ExtensionConditionTypes, tt) {
	t.Errorf("append Type%s to conditionsets.ConditionTypes in this package's init function", tt)
	}
	}

	for_, tt:=rangeconditionsets.ConditionTypes {
	if!slices.Contains(types, tt) {
	t.Errorf("there must be a Type%[1]s string literal constant for type %[1]q (i.e. 'const Type%[1]s = %[1]q')", tt)
	}
	}
	for_, tt:=rangeconditionsets.ExtensionConditionTypes {
	if!slices.Contains(types, tt) {
	t.Errorf("there must be a Type%[1]s string literal constant for type %[1]q (i.e. 'const Type%[1]s = %[1]q')", tt)
	}
	}
	}

	funcTestClusterExtensionReasonRegistration(t*testing.T) {
	reasons, err:=parseConstants("Reason")
	iferr!=nil {
	t.Fatalf("unable to parse Reason constants %v", err)
	}

	for_, r:=rangereasons {
	if!slices.Contains(conditionsets.ConditionReasons, r) &&!slices.Contains(conditionsets.ExtensionConditionReasons, r) {
	t.Errorf("append Reason%s to conditionsets.ConditionReasons in this package's init function.", r)
	}
	}
	for_, r:=rangeconditionsets.ConditionReasons {
	if!slices.Contains(reasons, r) {
	t.Errorf("there must be a Reason%[1]s string literal constant for reason %[1]q (i.e. 'const Reason%[1]s = %[1]q')", r)
	}
	}
	for_, r:=rangeconditionsets.ExtensionConditionReasons {
	if!slices.Contains(reasons, r) {
	t.Errorf("there must be a Reason%[1]s string literal constant for reason %[1]q (i.e. 'const Reason%[1]s = %[1]q')", r)
	}
	}
	}

		ReasonFailedToReachDesiredIntent = "FailedToReachDesiredIntent"
		ReasonReachedDesiredIntent = "ReachedDesiredIntent"

Uh oh!

Conversation

acmenezes commented May 2, 2024

Description

Reviewer Checklist

Uh oh!

netlifyBot commented May 2, 2024• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

✅ Deploy Preview for olmv1 ready!

Uh oh!

codecovBot commented May 2, 2024• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

joelanford commented May 3, 2024

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

joelanfordMay 3, 2024• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

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!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

everettraven left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

acmenezes commented May 7, 2024

Uh oh!

varshaprasad96 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

everettraven left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

varshaprasad96 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

netlifyBot commented May 2, 2024•
edited
Loading

codecovBot commented May 2, 2024•
edited
Loading

joelanfordMay 3, 2024•
edited
Loading