Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.

Bug 1844502

Summary: Deployment controller should report Progressing until .status.readyReplicas == .spec.replicas
Product: OpenShift Container Platform Reporter: Maciej Szulik <maszulik>
Component: kube-controller-managerAssignee: Maciej Szulik <maszulik>
Status: CLOSED DEFERRED QA Contact: zhou ying <yinzhou>
Severity: high Docs Contact:
Priority: high    
Version: 4.6CC: aos-bugs, mfojtik
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: 4.7.0   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard: LifecycleReset
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-09-11 11:36:11 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 Maciej Szulik 2020-06-05 14:37:36 UTC
This is coming from https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830271.

In short from the discussion with Tomas we should be reporting Progressing for deployment until it reaches full availability. Currently we only report MinimumReplicasAvailable the moment we reach one, but never explicitly say that we're done. Keeping Progressing until the end is a reasonable simple fix we can get right away until we get the new status.

Comment 1 Maciej Szulik 2020-06-18 10:17:01 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 will revisit this bug next sprint.

Comment 2 Maciej Szulik 2020-07-09 11:07:23 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 will revisit this bug next sprint.

Comment 3 Maciej Szulik 2020-08-21 14:09:54 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 will revisit this bug next sprint.

Comment 4 Michal Fojtik 2020-08-24 13:12:46 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 5 Michal Fojtik 2020-08-25 11:28:54 UTC
The LifecycleStale keyword was removed because the needinfo? flag was reset.
The bug assignee was notified.

Comment 6 Maciej Szulik 2020-09-11 11:36:11 UTC
Actually we'll be pursuing improved condition topic upstream, see https://issues.redhat.com/browse/WRKLDS-205