Cleanup role for tripleo services #649
Conversation
|
Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request. |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: jpodivin 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 |
|
Build failed (check pipeline). Post https://review.rdoproject.org/zuul/buildset/9c1662b4c35b49fb8ff66653788108da ✔️ openstack-k8s-operators-content-provider SUCCESS in 49m 41s |
|
Zuul encountered a syntax error while parsing its configuration in the Job edpm_tripleo_cleanup not defined The error appears in the following project stanza: project: in "openstack-k8s-operators/edpm-ansible/zuul.d/projects.yaml@main", line 2, column 3 |
jpodivin
force-pushed
the
cleanup-role
branch
13 times, most recently
from
3b73a6f to
cc0a178
Compare
jpodivin
changed the title
jpodivin
force-pushed
the
cleanup-role
branch
3 times, most recently
from
98d8941 to
fd7a1c1
Compare
|
recheck - new tests |
jpodivin
force-pushed
the
cleanup-role
branch
2 times, most recently
from
94844e6 to
b8602f9
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
looks good to me.
I rechecked the data-plane-adoption patch using the new playbook openstack-k8s-operators/data-plane-adoption#438 to see if the newer versions of this PR works in a real env.
We are in a beta freeze and I'm not sure we want to land this now. I let others from the dataplane team decide on that.
Tests and docs included Signed-off-by: Jiri Podivin <[email protected]>
| edpm_remove_tripleo_unit_files: | ||
| type: "bool" | ||
| description: | | ||
| Remove unit files after disabling services. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
in two minds about this one. where do we draw the cleanup line? It is one thing to stop the service it is another to cleanup files/packages etc. (yes I realise you're not removing packages here).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
At this point I don't really care much either way. The cleanup procedure can be adjusted, or left with defaults. One way or another, given the number of files involving tripleo, we are going to miss something. After all, we have been adopting without cleanup up until now.
What is critical, is that no tripleo processes are running, or can spontaneously start up after adoption. As that could cause damage.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think when we start doing operations on the data plane we are already beyond "point of no return" in terms of rollback so i don't think we'd be reinstating the old services. But i think it's nice that there is a variable to control the removal, thanks.
|
This passed in the adoption CI and the beta freeze is over, so IMO "merge and iterate if necessary" is the way :) |
|
/lgtm |
openshift-merge-bot
bot
merged commit c420dec
into
openstack-k8s-operators:main
Just a role with documentation and tests. Actual invocations of the role, along with removals of other cleanup routines, will be included in follow up PRs.