clean up openshift-sdn references in the API #1981
Conversation
|
@danwinship: This pull request references SDN-4900 which is a valid jira issue. In response to this:
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-robot
added
the
jira/valid-reference
|
Hello @danwinship! Some important instructions when contributing to openshift/api: |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
size/L
| @@ -91,8 +91,8 @@ type NetworkSpec struct { | |||
| // deployKubeProxy specifies whether or not a standalone kube-proxy should | |||
| // be deployed by the operator. Some network providers include kube-proxy | |||
| // or similar functionality. If unset, the plugin will attempt to select | |||
| // the correct value, which is false when OpenShift SDN and ovn-kubernetes are | |||
| // used and true otherwise. | |||
| // the correct value, which is false when ovn-kubernetes is used and true | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
While we are here should we change ovn-kubernetes to OVNKubernetes?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OVNKubernetes with no hyphen and no space is generally only used as a value in the API, whereas we're talking about the plugin itself here really, so ovn-kubernetes (or OVN-Kubernetes or OVN Kubernetes seems correct)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the name BU prefers in all documentation is OVN Kubernetes. cc @mcurry-rh.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The existing API documentation is inconsistent and this does not change it, so that can be fixed later.
openshift-ci
bot
added
size/XL
openshift-merge-robot
added
the
needs-rebase
We never want to do that again.
openshift-merge-robot
removed
the
needs-rebase
openshift-ci
bot
added
size/XXL
|
@kyrtapz can you re-review? |
|
/lgtm |
|
/assign knobunc |
|
/approve |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: danwinship, knobunc, kyrtapz 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 |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
approved
|
/retest |
1 similar comment
|
/retest |
|
@danwinship: The following test failed, say
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. |
danwinship
changed the title
|
@danwinship: No Jira issue is referenced in the title of this pull request. In response to this:
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-robot
removed
the
jira/valid-reference
|
/override ci/prow/minor-e2e-upgrade-minor |
|
@knobunc: Overrode contexts on behalf of knobunc: ci/prow/minor-e2e-upgrade-minor In response to this:
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. |
|
[ART PR BUILD NOTIFIER] Distgit: ose-cluster-config-api |
config.openshift.io:OVNKubernetes, notOpenShiftSDN.NetworkMigrationto make it clear that it is used for status, not spec.operator.openshift.io:OpenShiftSDNConfigas deprecated.OVNKubernetesis not supported. 😬NetworkTypemigration is no longer supported by current versions of OpenShift, and so setting the associated fields will result in CNO rejecting the configuration.network.openshift.ioNote that all of the
network.openshift.iotypes are now neither read from nor written to by any OCP component. In theory, users might be using them for their own purposes for unknown reasons not related to openshift-sdn, but other than that there's no reason to not just remove those types completely. (Though this PR does not do that.)