Skip to content

NETOBSERV-2054: Adding version label to upstream bundle #1415

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

NETOBSERV-2054: Adding version label to upstream bundle #1415

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

OlivierCazade
Copy link
Contributor

Description

Adding version label to upstream bundle

Dependencies

n/a

Checklist

If you are not familiar with our processes or don't know what to answer in the list below, let us know in a comment: the maintainers will take care of that.

  • Is this PR backed with a JIRA ticket? If so, make sure it is written as a title prefix (in general, PRs affecting the NetObserv/Network Observability product should be backed with a JIRA ticket - especially if they bring user facing changes).
  • Does this PR require product documentation?
    • If so, make sure the JIRA epic is labeled with "documentation" and provides a description relevant for doc writers, such as use cases or scenarios. Any required step to activate or configure the feature should be documented there, such as new CRD knobs.
  • Does this PR require a product release notes entry?
    • If so, fill in "Release Note Text" in the JIRA.
  • Is there anything else the QE team should know before testing? E.g: configuration changes, environment setup, etc.
    • If so, make sure it is described in the JIRA ticket.
  • QE requirements (check 1 from the list):
    • Standard QE validation, with pre-merge tests unless stated otherwise.
    • Regression tests only (e.g. refactoring with no user-facing change).
    • No QE (e.g. trivial change with high reviewer's confidence, or per agreement with the QE team).

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

openshift-ci-robot commented Apr 18, 2025 •
edited by openshift-ci bot
Loading

@OlivierCazade: This pull request references NETOBSERV-2054 which is a valid jira issue.

Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the story to target the "4.19.0" version, but no target version was set.

In response to this:

Description

Adding version label to upstream bundle

Dependencies

n/a

Checklist

If you are not familiar with our processes or don't know what to answer in the list below, let us know in a comment: the maintainers will take care of that.

  • Is this PR backed with a JIRA ticket? If so, make sure it is written as a title prefix (in general, PRs affecting the NetObserv/Network Observability product should be backed with a JIRA ticket - especially if they bring user facing changes).
  • Does this PR require product documentation?
  • If so, make sure the JIRA epic is labeled with "documentation" and provides a description relevant for doc writers, such as use cases or scenarios. Any required step to activate or configure the feature should be documented there, such as new CRD knobs.
  • Does this PR require a product release notes entry?
  • If so, fill in "Release Note Text" in the JIRA.
  • Is there anything else the QE team should know before testing? E.g: configuration changes, environment setup, etc.
  • If so, make sure it is described in the JIRA ticket.
  • QE requirements (check 1 from the list):
  • Standard QE validation, with pre-merge tests unless stated otherwise.
  • Regression tests only (e.g. refactoring with no user-facing change).
  • No QE (e.g. trivial change with high reviewer's confidence, or per agreement with the QE team).

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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

@openshift-ci OpenShift CI
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Apr 18, 2025

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign ronensc for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

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

@openshift-ci OpenShift CI
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Apr 18, 2025

@OlivierCazade: 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/e2e-operator 557cdd6 link false /test e2e-operator

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

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.

memodi
memodi reviewed Apr 22, 2025
View reviewed changes
bundle.Dockerfile
@@ -1,5 +1,7 @@
FROM scratch

ARG BUNDLEVERSION=1.9.0
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

we'll need to update this every time we cut the branch, correct? could we please document somewhere?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

1.9.0 value here si just the default one if the arg is not specified.

In the Makefile we already have a variable with the current version that is updated every new version, we set the argument using this variable, so this should not add any work when cutting branch.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

maybe just remove the default value then ? So there's no ambiguity

memodi
memodi reviewed Apr 22, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@memodi memodi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

thanks @OlivierCazade , besides the bundle version, could we add some labels to bundle and individual component images to show which revision they're on for e.g.: short sh256 of latest git commit that main image is currently at?

@jotak
Copy link
Member

jotak commented Apr 25, 2025 •
edited
Loading

thanks @OlivierCazade , besides the bundle version, could we add some labels to bundle and individual component images to show which revision they're on for e.g.: short sh256 of latest git commit that main image is currently at?

@memodi It already exists, it's the "vcs-ref" label:

$ skopeo inspect docker://quay.io/redhat-user-workloads/ocp-network-observab-tenant/network-observability-operator-bundle-ystream@sha256:202263f1605bc99b64e7167a97b4b9b03eddce30314b2647b1d6c68d45b1ee6e | jq '.Labels["vcs-ref"]'
"5841fb0ec2080ee6361bf55036f2321dec8f73af"

$ git log -1 5841fb0ec2080ee6361bf55036f2321dec8f73af
commit 5841fb0ec2080ee6361bf55036f2321dec8f73af (upstream/main, upstream/HEAD)
Author: red-hat-konflux[bot] <126015336+red-hat-konflux[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Date:   Thu Apr 24 17:14:52 2025 +0200

    chore(deps): update netobserv-ebpf-agent-ystream to 0b2a03c (#1437)
    
    Image created from 'https://github.com/netobserv/netobserv-ebpf-agent?rev=02675b93c9f731e163541227cbfcdcc8df631163'
    
    Signed-off-by: red-hat-konflux <126015336+red-hat-konflux[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
    Co-authored-by: red-hat-konflux[bot] <126015336+red-hat-konflux[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>

EDIT: sorry, just saw you're talking about upstream and not downstream

@memodi
Copy link
Contributor

memodi commented Apr 25, 2025

EDIT: sorry, just saw you're talking about upstream and not downstream

yes, these labels does exist on upstream images as well, but they don't seem to be accurate and values of them are just same across different component images, for e.g.: comparing FLP and Operator main images here:

$ podman image inspect quay.io/netobserv/flowlogs-pipeline:main | jq '.[].Config.Labels."build-date"'
"2025-03-25T14:50:12Z"
$ podman image inspect quay.io/netobserv/flowlogs-pipeline:main | jq '.[].Config.Labels["vcs-ref"]'
"63823c7605fee63261a8e33cad8085bc4bb24676"

$ podman image inspect quay.io/netobserv/network-observability-operator:main | jq '.[].Config.Labels."build-date"'
"2025-03-25T14:50:12Z"
$ podman image inspect quay.io/netobserv/network-observability-operator:main | jq '.[].Config.Labels["vcs-ref"]'
"63823c7605fee63261a8e33cad8085bc4bb24676"

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@jotak jotak jotak left review comments

@memodi memodi memodi left review comments

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
jira/valid-reference
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@OlivierCazade @openshift-ci-robot @jotak @memodi