Skip to content
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

operator [N] yugabyte-operator (0.0.1) #2951

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

bhavin192
Copy link

This operator is no longer maintained, so updating the description to reflect that. See the note from the README:
https://github.com/yugabyte/yugabyte-operator/

Though I'm not listed as maintainer in the CSV, I have contributed to the operator itself in the past https://github.com/yugabyte/yugabyte-operator/graphs/contributors and I'm part of the Yugabyte org.

Also we have a note on the source code repository of this operator about the deprecation: https://github.com/yugabyte/yugabyte-operator/

cc @iSignal

Updates to existing Operators

  • Did you create a ci.yaml file according to the update instructions?
  • Is your new CSV pointing to the previous version with the replaces property if you chose replaces-mode via the updateGraph property in ci.yaml?
  • Is your new CSV referenced in the appropriate channel defined in the package.yaml or annotations.yaml ?
  • Have you tested an update to your Operator when deployed via OLM?
  • Is your submission signed?

Your submission should not

  • Modify more than one operator
  • Modify an Operator you don't own
  • Rename an operator - please remove and add with a different name instead
  • Modify any files outside the above mentioned folders
  • Contain more than one commit. Please squash your commits.

This operator is no longer maintained, so updating the description to
reflect that. See the note from the README:
https://github.com/yugabyte/yugabyte-operator/

Signed-off-by: Bhavin Gandhi <[email protected]>
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot requested review from mporrato and tomasbakk July 4, 2023 07:15
@github-actions github-actions bot changed the title Deprecate YugabyteDB Operator (0.0.1) operator [N] yugabyte-operator (0.0.1) Jul 4, 2023
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jul 4, 2023

Dear @bhavin192,
Some errors and/or warnings were found while doing the check of your operator (yugabyte-operator/0.0.1) against the entire suite of validators for Operator Framework with Operator-SDK version v1.26.1 and the command $ operator-sdk bundle validate <bundle-path> --select-optional suite=operatorframework.

Errors (:bug:) must be fixed while warnings (:warning:) are informative, and fixing them might improve the quality of your solution.

Type Message
🐛 Field spec.preserveUnknownFields, Value 0xc00070277e: spec.preserveUnknownFields: Invalid value: true: cannot set to true, set x-kubernetes-preserve-unknown-fields to true in spec.versions[*].schema instead
⚠️ Value : (yugabyte-operator.v0.0.1) csv.Spec.minKubeVersion is not informed. It is recommended you provide this information. Otherwise, it would mean that your operator project can be distributed and installed in any cluster version available, which is not necessarily the case for all projects.
⚠️ Value yugabyte-operator.v0.0.1: this bundle is using APIs which were deprecated and removed in v1.22. More info: https://kubernetes.io/docs/reference/using-api/deprecation-guide/#v1-22. Migrate the API(s) for CRD: (["ybclusters.yugabyte.com"])
⚠️ Value yugabyte-operator.v0.0.1: unable to find the resource requests for the container: (yugabyte-k8s-operator). It is recommended to ensure the resource request for CPU and Memory. Be aware that for some clusters configurations it is required to specify requests or limits for those values. Otherwise, the system or quota may reject Pod creation. More info: https://master.sdk.operatorframework.io/docs/best-practices/managing-resources/

Copy link

@iSignal iSignal left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

As one of the maintainers of this operator, I approve this change. @mporrato @Allda - could you please let us know what the next steps are? This change is purely a description change, so we would like to not change the code pointed out by the lint warnings.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants