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

Fix pool name check for blockpools #1830

Merged

Conversation

vbnrh
Copy link
Member

@vbnrh vbnrh commented Jan 22, 2025

oc get cephblockpool -A
NAMESPACE           NAME                                      PHASE   TYPE         FAILUREDOMAIN   AGE
openshift-storage   builtin-mgr                               Ready   Replicated   host            40d
openshift-storage   ocs-storagecluster-cephblockpool          Ready   Replicated   host            40d
openshift-storage   ocs-storagecluster-cephblockpool-pool-3   Ready   Replicated   host            58m
openshift-storage   pool-5                                    Ready   Replicated   host            149m

Created the following blockpools above

Checking with pool-3, it does not allow to continue
Screenshot 2025-01-22 at 8 25 52 PM

Checking with pool-5, it allows it normally
Screenshot 2025-01-22 at 8 26 21 PM

@vbnrh vbnrh changed the title Fix prefix name for blockpool names Fix pool name check for blockpools Jan 22, 2025
@SanjalKatiyar
Copy link
Collaborator

/approve
/lgtm

@SanjalKatiyar
Copy link
Collaborator

/cherry-pick release-4.18

@openshift-cherrypick-robot

@SanjalKatiyar: once the present PR merges, I will cherry-pick it on top of release-4.18 in a new PR and assign it to you.

In response to this:

/cherry-pick release-4.18

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.

@SanjalKatiyar
Copy link
Collaborator

/cherry-pick release-4.18-compatibility

@openshift-cherrypick-robot

@SanjalKatiyar: once the present PR merges, I will cherry-pick it on top of release-4.18-compatibility in a new PR and assign it to you.

In response to this:

/cherry-pick release-4.18-compatibility

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.

@SanjalKatiyar
Copy link
Collaborator

/lgtm cancel

Signed-off-by: vbadrina <vbadrina@redhat.com>
@vbnrh vbnrh force-pushed the fix-pool-name-check branch from 9c807c6 to 12a9266 Compare January 23, 2025 08:27
@SanjalKatiyar
Copy link
Collaborator

/approve
/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm label Jan 23, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Jan 23, 2025

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: SanjalKatiyar, vbnrh

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 /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@openshift-merge-bot openshift-merge-bot bot merged commit 2c83b49 into red-hat-storage:master Jan 23, 2025
5 checks passed
@openshift-cherrypick-robot

@SanjalKatiyar: new pull request created: #1834

In response to this:

/cherry-pick release-4.18-compatibility

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.

@openshift-cherrypick-robot

@SanjalKatiyar: new pull request created: #1835

In response to this:

/cherry-pick release-4.18

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.

@@ -151,15 +151,18 @@ export const StoragePoolBody: React.FC<StoragePoolBodyProps> = ({
.test(
'unique-name',
translationFieldRequirements[3],
(value: string) => !existingNames.includes(value)
(value: string) =>
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@SanjalKatiyar @vbnrh does it works in case of filesystem

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It should work IMO (we haven't updated that part of code).

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