Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.

Bug 1816773

Summary:	UsingDeprecatedAPIExtensionsV1Beta1 still exists in 4.3.8
Product:	OpenShift Container Platform	Reporter:	Christoph Blecker <cblecker>
Component:	kube-apiserver	Assignee:	Maciej Szulik <maszulik>
Status:	CLOSED NEXTRELEASE	QA Contact:	Xingxing Xia <xxia>
Severity:	low	Docs Contact:
Priority:	low
Version:	4.3.z	CC:	aos-bugs, maszulik, mfojtik, nmalik, tnozicka, wking
Target Milestone:	---	Keywords:	Reopened
Target Release:	4.3.z	Flags:	maszulik: needinfo-
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2020-10-29 14:49:53 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:
Bug Depends On:	1793850
Bug Blocks:

Description Christoph Blecker 2020-03-24 17:21:56 UTC

Description of problem:
The object `prometheusrules.monitoring.coreos.com/kube-apiserver` in the openshift-kube-apiserver namespace still exists after an upgrade from 4.3.1 -> 4.3.8. This object should have been deleted, per Bug #1795617.

If the PrometheusRule is manually deleted, it does not return.


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
4.3.8


How reproducible:
This was seen on a cluster that was created on 4.1.34, upgraded to 4.2.18, then to 4.3.1, and lastly a force upgrade to 4.3.8 as an edge is not available.


Steps to Reproduce:
1. Create cluster as above
2. Observe that the object still exists `oc get prometheusrules.monitoring.coreos.com/kube-apiserver -n openshift-kube-apiserver`
3. Remove object, and it will not return.

Actual results:
Alert still exists and will fire.


Expected results:
Alert is removed during the upgrade process and doesn't exist.


Additional info:

Comment 1 Maciej Szulik 2020-04-03 12:21:13 UTC

I've opened https://github.com/openshift/openshift-docs/pull/20878 which will document the ability to remove that alert manually if one wishes to.

Comment 5 Scott Dodson 2020-05-14 14:16:51 UTC

Maciej,

Which specific 4.3.z did this alert go in? Why can't we put something in place to clean it up now that we've chosen to remove it?

Comment 7 Maciej Szulik 2020-05-20 08:24:47 UTC

PRs in the queue.

Comment 8 Maciej Szulik 2020-06-18 09:55:26 UTC

This waiting to be merged in the queue.

Comment 9 Maciej Szulik 2020-07-09 10:56:01 UTC

This waiting to be merged in the queue.

Comment 10 Michal Fojtik 2020-08-20 11:47:14 UTC

This bug hasn't had any activity in the last 30 days. Maybe the problem got resolved, was a duplicate of something else, or became less pressing for some reason - or maybe it's still relevant but just hasn't been looked at yet. As such, we're marking this bug as "LifecycleStale" and decreasing the severity/priority. If you have further information on the current state of the bug, please update it, otherwise this bug can be closed in about 7 days. The information can be, for example, that the problem still occurs, that you still want the feature, that more information is needed, or that the bug is (for whatever reason) no longer relevant.

Comment 11 Maciej Szulik 2020-08-21 11:35:11 UTC

Adding UpcomingSprint since the bug is already in the queue and waiting for docs review.

Comment 12 Michal Fojtik 2020-08-24 09:18:13 UTC

This bug hasn't had any activity in the last 30 days. Maybe the problem got resolved, was a duplicate of something else, or became less pressing for some reason - or maybe it's still relevant but just hasn't been looked at yet. As such, we're marking this bug as "LifecycleStale" and decreasing the severity/priority. If you have further information on the current state of the bug, please update it, otherwise this bug can be closed in about 7 days. The information can be, for example, that the problem still occurs, that you still want the feature, that more information is needed, or that the bug is (for whatever reason) no longer relevant.

Comment 13 Michal Fojtik 2020-08-24 11:40:41 UTC

This bug hasn't had any activity in the last 30 days. Maybe the problem got resolved, was a duplicate of something else, or became less pressing for some reason - or maybe it's still relevant but just hasn't been looked at yet. As such, we're marking this bug as "LifecycleStale" and decreasing the severity/priority. If you have further information on the current state of the bug, please update it, otherwise this bug can be closed in about 7 days. The information can be, for example, that the problem still occurs, that you still want the feature, that more information is needed, or that the bug is (for whatever reason) no longer relevant.

Comment 14 Maciej Szulik 2020-08-24 11:49:26 UTC

This is already in the queue, waiting for merge.

Comment 15 Maciej Szulik 2020-09-11 11:16:03 UTC

This is already in the queue, waiting for merge.

Comment 16 Maciej Szulik 2020-10-01 14:07:11 UTC

I’m adding UpcomingSprint, because I was occupied by fixing bugs with higher priority/severity, developing new features with higher priority, or developing new features to improve stability at a macro level. I'm also waiting for OA decision since this backport is not a simple one.

Comment 17 Maciej Szulik 2020-10-23 10:26:39 UTC

It looks like this issue is not going to be merged. This problem was solved in newer versions of the product.