Bug 1810011 - PV resize should be blocked in OCS 4.3
Summary: PV resize should be blocked in OCS 4.3
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat OpenShift Container Storage
Classification: Red Hat Storage
Component: ocs-operator
Version: 4.3
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
high
Target Milestone: ---
: OCS 4.3.0
Assignee: umanga
QA Contact: Raz Tamir
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2020-03-04 12:01 UTC by Raz Tamir
Modified: 2020-09-23 09:07 UTC (History)
9 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-04-14 09:45:56 UTC
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)
screenshot_of_verification (98.88 KB, image/png)
2020-03-11 14:21 UTC, Raz Tamir
no flags Details


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Github openshift ocs-operator pull 437 0 None closed disable volume expansion for OCS PV 2020-04-16 12:56:31 UTC
Red Hat Product Errata RHBA-2020:1437 0 None None None 2020-04-14 09:48:16 UTC

Description Raz Tamir 2020-03-04 12:01:57 UTC
Description of problem (please be detailed as possible and provide log
snippests):
As PV resize button was exposed in the UI even in OCS 4.2 but blocked due to a functionality gap, it used to fail when performing the resize operation.
In OCS 4.3, this functionality is was covered and introduced in the CSI layer which means a customer can try PV resize and it might work and might not.
This is not a 4.3 feature and therefore should be blocked in OCS 4.3.

This cannot be tested due to time constraints and capacity gaps we currently have in this late phase of the release (4.3)

Version of all relevant components (if applicable):


Does this issue impact your ability to continue to work with the product
(please explain in detail what is the user impact)?


Is there any workaround available to the best of your knowledge?


Rate from 1 - 5 the complexity of the scenario you performed that caused this
bug (1 - very simple, 5 - very complex)?


Can this issue reproducible?


Can this issue reproduce from the UI?


If this is a regression, please provide more details to justify this:


Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.


Actual results:


Expected results:


Additional info:

Comment 2 Michael Adam 2020-03-05 16:49:27 UTC
I don't think we can block it from the UI since this is a generic Openshift UI.

Comment 3 Nishanth Thomas 2020-03-06 05:43:56 UTC
Same issue was raised(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1743643) during 4.2 time-frame as well and we decided to document it(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1753582) rather than trying to block it in the console. Let us stick with the same decision here as well

Comment 4 Raz Tamir 2020-03-06 07:21:21 UTC
No need to block from the UI but to ensure the underlying code will not initiate pv resize.
In 4.2, pv resize didn't work so no harm can be done except user experience which can be documented. 
Here, pv resize will work but never tested so bad things can happen

Comment 5 umanga 2020-03-06 13:31:27 UTC
Posted a fix.

Comment 6 Jose A. Rivera 2020-03-09 13:59:28 UTC
I will note that the proposed solution does nothing to fundamentally block PV resize in our PVs, there's really nothing we can do about that at this point, but it does prevent it from the default StorageClasses we provide. That's about the best we can do.

Comment 9 Michael Adam 2020-03-10 23:27:30 UTC
https://ceph-jenkins.rhev-ci-vms.eng.rdu2.redhat.com/job/OCS%20Build%20Pipeline%204.3/102/

has the fix.

Build has passed ci and is given to QE

Comment 10 Raz Tamir 2020-03-11 14:20:20 UTC
Verified on latest OCS + OCP
Screenshot attached

Comment 11 Raz Tamir 2020-03-11 14:21:04 UTC
Created attachment 1669329 [details]
screenshot_of_verification

Comment 14 errata-xmlrpc 2020-04-14 09:45:56 UTC
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2020:1437


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.