-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 392
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.
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
OCPBUGS-32242: The MCO makes a lot of API requests for ClusterOperator objects #4321
OCPBUGS-32242: The MCO makes a lot of API requests for ClusterOperator objects #4321
Conversation
@djoshy: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-32242, which is invalid:
Comment The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker. 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. |
Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request. |
/test unit |
576ed4b
to
1df281a
Compare
/test unit |
1df281a
to
6846332
Compare
/test unit |
6846332
to
509a97d
Compare
@djoshy: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-32242. The bug has been updated to no longer refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker. All external bug links have been closed. The bug has been moved to the NEW state. 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. |
@djoshy: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-32242, which is invalid:
Comment The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker. 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. |
/test unit |
84dbb45
to
0cd0548
Compare
/test unit |
e7db829
to
eddfc35
Compare
/test unit |
/test e2e-aws-ovn |
eddfc35
to
22bf993
Compare
/test unit |
22bf993
to
cc03e88
Compare
/test e2e-aws-ovn |
cc03e88
to
5060079
Compare
/test unit |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: djoshy, yuqi-zhang 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 |
/jira refresh The requirements for Jira bugs have changed (Jira issues linked to PRs on main branch need to target different OCP), recalculating validity. |
@openshift-bot: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-32242, which is valid. 3 validation(s) were run on this bug
Requesting review from QA contact: 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. |
/jira refresh The requirements for Jira bugs have changed (Jira issues linked to PRs on main branch need to target different OCP), recalculating validity. |
@openshift-bot: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-32242, which is invalid:
Comment 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. |
/jira refresh |
@djoshy: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-32242, which is valid. 3 validation(s) were run on this bug
Requesting review from QA contact: 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. |
/test all |
Critical e2e test cases executed in: https://qe-private-deck-ci.apps.ci.l2s4.p1.openshiftapps.com/view/gs/qe-private-deck/logs/periodic-ci-openshift-openshift-tests-private-release-4.16-amd64-nightly-aws-ipi-f9-longduration-mco-critical/1792602290306158592 (failed, could not install) |
Critical e2e test cases executed in: https://qe-private-deck-ci.apps.ci.l2s4.p1.openshiftapps.com/view/gs/qe-private-deck/logs/periodic-ci-openshift-openshift-tests-private-release-4.16-amd64-nightly-aws-ipi-f9-longduration-mco-critical/1792826455558721536 (installation failed) |
Verfication steps
We can observe that for the clusteroperators
Those numbers are lower than the ones found in previous executions and reported at the beginning of this PR. /label qe-approved |
/unhold |
/test all |
/test e2e-gcp-op-single-node |
e7da460
into
openshift:master
@djoshy: Jira Issue OCPBUGS-32242: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged: Jira Issue OCPBUGS-32242 has been moved to the MODIFIED state. 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. |
@djoshy: The following tests 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. |
[ART PR BUILD NOTIFIER] This PR has been included in build ose-machine-config-operator-container-v4.17.0-202405230209.p0.ge7da460.assembly.stream.el9 for distgit ose-machine-config-operator. |
I added a lister and cached the CO object wherever I could, and only did a get call when there is an update conflict error. Initial results look promising. I think we should be safe to merge this if the test suite is passing, but it can wait till after FF. It does not introduce any new behavior, so we could probably skip pre-merge QE.
For a recentish test run(LARGE FILE WARNING) on #4327 :
On a test run on this PR, the above scrape only shows:
This is likely because a large amount of the calls have been optimized out; and some amount of calls when the cluster is born have been scrolled off in the audit logs and was not caught by the scraper tool. We should be failing most of the tests if we are not doing any update/get calls :P