Bug 1481798

Summary:	[DOCS] passthrough route already exists for docker-registry service, contradicting documentation
Product:	OpenShift Container Platform	Reporter:	Matthew Whitehead <mwhitehe>
Component:	Documentation	Assignee:	Alex Dellapenta <adellape>
Status:	CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE	QA Contact:	Vikram Goyal <vigoyal>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:	Vikram Goyal <vigoyal>
Priority:	high
Version:	3.6.0	CC:	aos-bugs, jokerman, kwoodson, mmccomas, mwhitehe, sdodson
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	x86_64
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:	3.7-release-plan
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2017-10-18 17:23:55 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Matthew Whitehead 2017-08-15 18:23:30 UTC

Document URL: https://docs.openshift.com/container-platform/3.6/install_config/registry/securing_and_exposing_registry.html#exposing-the-registry

Section Number and Name: 

Describe the issue: Running the command 'oc create route passthrough --service=docker-registry --hostname=my.domain.name.com' fails with the error "Error from server (AlreadyExists): router 'docker-registry' already exists'.

Suggestions for improvement: This needs to go through QA and be changed to something else; it does not work as written.

Additional information: Doing an 'oc get route/docker-registry -o yaml' clearly shows a pre-created passthrough route created in the install process.

Comment 1 Scott Dodson 2017-08-15 19:09:08 UTC

Can you not just define a new name like 'my-route' ?

oc create route passthrough my-route --service=docker-registry --hostname=my.domain.name.com

Comment 2 Matthew Whitehead 2017-08-15 19:18:35 UTC

Certainly one can change the name of the route, but our documentation does not yet reflect that. Our customers are going to ask the same question as 3.6 rolls out:

https://docs.openshift.com/container-platform/3.6/install_config/registry/securing_and_exposing_registry.html#exposing-the-registry

Why did the installer change this from 3.5 to 3.6? What is the benefit?

Comment 3 Scott Dodson 2017-08-15 19:38:53 UTC

It's necessary to support the registry-console which was a feature added after 3.5 GA.

Comment 4 Alex Dellapenta 2017-08-16 18:53:10 UTC

Working via https://github.com/openshift/openshift-docs/pull/5032.

Comment 6 Alex Dellapenta 2017-09-21 20:27:25 UTC

Updated PR with tech review feedback.

Comment 7 openshift-github-bot 2017-09-27 17:59:53 UTC

Commit pushed to master at https://github.com/openshift/openshift-docs

https://github.com/openshift/openshift-docs/commit/84ac3eb49bc1b038f3f779997bdb2674790708a4
Merge pull request #5032 from adellape/regroute

Bug 1481798: Add caveats that registry is secured/exposed by default

Comment 8 Alex Dellapenta 2017-09-27 20:14:16 UTC

The docs still acted like securing/exposing was not done by default already. Updated the doc to say what is likely already done by default, and frame the existing steps as manual procedures you can do if for some reason the registry is no longer secured/exposed.

https://github.com/openshift/openshift-docs/pull/5032 has merged and will be published in next week's release for OCP 3.6.

Comment 9 Alex Dellapenta 2017-10-18 17:23:55 UTC

Changes published:

https://docs.openshift.com/container-platform/3.6/welcome/revhistory_full.html#mon-oct-02-2017