Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because
the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.
RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.
DescriptionJuan Antonio Osorio
2020-10-27 12:43:40 UTC
Description of problem:
The current YAML probe has the limitation that it cannot work with sets of values. Meaning, we cannot verify values when we depend on more than one value to be set.
One instance is checking that the apiserver is in an upgradable state:
apiVersion: config.openshift.io/v1
kind: ClusterOperator
...
status:
conditions:
- lastTransitionTime: "2020-10-27T11:36:45Z"
reason: AsExpected
status: "False"
type: Degraded
- lastTransitionTime: "2020-10-27T11:44:12Z"
reason: AsExpected
status: "False"
type: Progressing
- lastTransitionTime: "2020-10-27T11:43:38Z"
reason: AsExpected
status: "True"
type: Available
- lastTransitionTime: "2020-10-27T11:36:43Z"
reason: AsExpected
status: "True"
type: Upgradeable
In this case, we have to iterate through the conditions and check that the type is "Upgradeable and the status is "True".
How reproducible:
100%
Additional info:
Besides the aforementioned example, there are other examples where such a functionality is needed. Without this, we'll be quite limited in the checks we can write for OCP4.
Comment 1Juan Antonio Osorio
2020-10-27 12:44:14 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 (openscap bug fix and enhancement update), 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/RHEA-2021:1784
Description of problem: The current YAML probe has the limitation that it cannot work with sets of values. Meaning, we cannot verify values when we depend on more than one value to be set. One instance is checking that the apiserver is in an upgradable state: apiVersion: config.openshift.io/v1 kind: ClusterOperator ... status: conditions: - lastTransitionTime: "2020-10-27T11:36:45Z" reason: AsExpected status: "False" type: Degraded - lastTransitionTime: "2020-10-27T11:44:12Z" reason: AsExpected status: "False" type: Progressing - lastTransitionTime: "2020-10-27T11:43:38Z" reason: AsExpected status: "True" type: Available - lastTransitionTime: "2020-10-27T11:36:43Z" reason: AsExpected status: "True" type: Upgradeable In this case, we have to iterate through the conditions and check that the type is "Upgradeable and the status is "True". How reproducible: 100% Additional info: Besides the aforementioned example, there are other examples where such a functionality is needed. Without this, we'll be quite limited in the checks we can write for OCP4.