Skip to content

Conversation

@pinikomarov
Copy link
Contributor

@pinikomarov pinikomarov commented Nov 25, 2025

Create infra can fail after a soft clean , on the '_user_data' assertion.

Resolves: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OSPRH-22377

changing the assert to the expected result resolves the issue : 

      - _user_data_change is skipped or _user_data_change is not changed

Before: 

https://gitlab.cee.redhat.com/pkomarov/examples/-/jobs/43687373

 
TASK [config_drive : Assert we don't try to change an existing ISO that=['_meta_data_change is not changed', '_user_data_change is not changed', '_net_data_change is not changed'], msg=You're trying to edit an existing ISO. This isn't possible, since the ISO is usually attached to a virtual machine, and you cannot dynamically edit it.] ***Monday 24 November 2025 11:07:57 -0500 (0:00:00.196) 0:02:15.395 ******* task path: /home/zuul/src/github.com/openstack-k8s-operators/ci-framework/roles/config_drive/tasks/main.yml:81fatal: [localhost]: FAILED! => assertion: _user_data_change is not changed changed: false evaluated_to: false msg: You're trying to edit an existing ISO. This isn't possible, since the ISO is usually attached to a virtual machine, and you cannot dynamically edit it.
 

After: 

https://gitlab.cee.redhat.com/pkomarov/examples/-/jobs/43727490/raw

TASK [config_drive : Assert we don't try to change an existing ISO that=['_meta_data_change is not changed', '_user_data_change is skipped or _user_data_change is not changed', '_net_data_change is not changed'], msg=You're trying to edit an existing ISO. This isn't possible, since the ISO is usually attached to a virtual machine, and you cannot dynamically edit it.] ***
task path: /home/zuul/src/github.com/openstack-k8s-operators/ci-framework/roles/config_drive/tasks/main.yml:112
Tuesday 25 November 2025 04:43:43 -0500 (0:00:00.046) 0:02:14.465 ******
Tuesday 25 November 2025 04:43:43 -0500 (0:00:00.046) 0:02:14.465 ******
ok: [localhost] =>
changed: false
msg: All assertions passed

@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Nov 25, 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 eshulman2 for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

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

Details 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

Copy link
Contributor

@danpawlik danpawlik left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

update commit message and add prefix:
[config_drive]

@pinikomarov pinikomarov self-assigned this Dec 2, 2025
hjensas
hjensas previously requested changes Dec 2, 2025
- _meta_data_change is not changed
- _user_data_change is not changed
- _user_data_change is skipped or _user_data_change is not changed
- _net_data_change is not changed
Copy link
Contributor

@hjensas hjensas Dec 2, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think we should do the same for _net_data_change - tasks "Generate user-data" and "Generate network-data" both use conditions like below, so both of should have the is skipped assert?

  when:
    - cifmw_config_drive_userdata is defined
    - cifmw_config_drive_userdata | length > 0

  when:
    - cifmw_config_drive_networkconfig is defined
    - cifmw_config_drive_networkconfig

Update, looks like | length > 0 on the cifmw_config_drive_networkconfig might make sense as well? But could do that in a separate PR?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@hjensas while those suggestions may work , for the issues in this BZ they're not needed.
Currently I'm not at capacity to test them further and their implications thoroughly.

I suggest we merge the changes here as they are , since they'ew tested and analyzed,
and leave any subsequent changes in seperate PRs.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sure, but please do a follow up.

@pinikomarov pinikomarov enabled auto-merge (rebase) December 16, 2025 13:39
@hjensas hjensas dismissed their stale review December 16, 2025 13:46

Will do follow up.

Copy link
Contributor

@hjensas hjensas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We should to a follow up to address the same issue in the next assert.

@pinikomarov pinikomarov merged commit 06f336f into openstack-k8s-operators:main Dec 16, 2025
4 of 6 checks passed
@hjensas
Copy link
Contributor

hjensas commented Dec 16, 2025

I created a follow up in: #3559

@danpawlik
Copy link
Contributor

It breaks CI jobs. Let me try to fix, first. If not, let's revert.

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

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants