Upgrade CAPI deps #892
Upgrade CAPI deps #892
Conversation
fiunchinho
force-pushed
the
update-capi-deps
branch
from
3b1cd98
to
1d71c28
Compare
| @@ -100,7 +100,8 @@ spec: | |||
| ssh: | |||
| userList: | |||
| - name: joe | |||
| publicKey: ssh-rsa AAAAB3NzaC1yc2EAAAADAQABAAACAQCuJvxy3FKGrfJ4XB5exEdKXiqqteXEPFzPtex6dC0lHyigtO7l+NXXbs9Lga2+Ifs0Tza92MRhg/FJ+6za3oULFo7+gDyt86DIkZkMFdnSv9+YxYe+g4zqakSV+bLVf2KP6krUGJb7t4Nb+gGH62AiUx+58Onxn5rvYC0/AXOYhkAiH8PydXTDJDPhSA/qWSWEeCQistpZEDFnaVi0e7uq/k3hWJ+v9Gz0q---SHORTENED---G7iIV0Y6o9w5gIHJxf6+8X70DCuVDx9OLHmjjMyGnd+1c3yTFMUdugtvmeiGW== joe | |||
| publicKey: ssh-rsa AAAAB3NzaC1yc2EAAAADAQABAAACAQCuJvxy3FKGrfJ4XB5exEdKXiqqteXEPFzPtex6dC0lHyigtO7l+NXXbs9Lga2+Ifs0Tza92MRhg/FJ+6za3oULFo7+gDyt86DIkZkMFdnSv9+YxYe+g4zqakSV+bLVf2KP6krUGJb7t4Nb+gGH62AiUx+58Onxn5rvYC0/AXOYhkAiH8PydXTDJDPhSA/qWSWEeCQistpZEDFnaVi0e7uq/k3hWJ+v9Gz0q---SHORTENED---G7iIV0Y6o9w5gIHJxf6+8X70DCuVDx9OLHmjjMyGnd+1c3yTFMUdugtvmeiGW== | |||
| joe | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@fiunchinho how the heck this change happened? 😄
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe it's this bug kubernetes-sigs/yaml#68
| @@ -164,7 +164,9 @@ spec: | |||
| could not be found in the time allotted, and the client | |||
| should retry (optionally after the time indicated in the | |||
| Retry-After header). \n Applied only if Name is not specified. | |||
| More info: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/api-conventions.md#idempotency" | |||
| More info: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/api-conventions.md#idempotency | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do we still have these upstream CRDs? Aren't they managed by the CAPA/CAPZ apps now?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The experimental CRDs for MachinePool and AzureMachinePool got moved to a new api group, but we are using them since they were on the old group. This means that if we upgrade, these types are gone, so our operators wouldn't be able to reconcile them. We want to ensure the CRDs and we want to go types available for our operators hence we have them here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess azure-operator should have a crd-install hook that installs these then. But fine for now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
After upgrading azure-operator CAPI dependencies (to be done after this PR is merged) and migrating customer MachinePools / AzureMachinePools we can get rid of these experimental CRDs, so we won't invest on doing the hook.
Towards https://github.com/giantswarm/giantswarm/issues/21301
Most of the changes you see on this PR are due to the length in description text fields.
Checklist