OCPBUGS-34310: Updating ose-cluster-kube-apiserver-operator-container image to be consistent with ART for 4.17

[openshift-bot]

Updating ose-cluster-kube-apiserver-operator-container image to be consistent with ART for 4.17 TLDR: Product builds by ART can be configured for different base and builder images than corresponding CI builds. This automated PR requests a change to CI configuration to align with ART's configuration; please take steps to merge it quickly or contact ART to coordinate changes.

The configuration in the following ART component metadata is driving this alignment request: ose-cluster-kube-apiserver-operator.yml.

Detail:

This repository is out of sync with the downstream product builds for this component. The CI configuration for at least one image differs from ART's expected product configuration. This should be addressed to ensure that the component's CI testing accurate reflects what customers will experience.

Most of these PRs are opened as an ART-driven proposal to migrate base image or builder(s) to a different version, usually prior to GA. The intent is to effect changes in both configurations simultaneously without breaking either CI or ART builds, so usually ART builds are configured to consider CI as canonical and attempt to match CI config until the PR merges to align both. ART may also configure changes in GA releases with CI remaining canonical for a brief grace period to enable CI to succeed and the alignment PR to merge. In either case, ART configuration will be made canonical at some point (typically at branch-cut before GA or release dev-cut after GA), so it is important to align CI configuration as soon as possible.

PRs are also triggered when CI configuration changes without ART coordination, for instance to change the number of builder images or to use a different golang version. These changes should be coordinated with ART; whether ART configuration is canonical or not, preferably it would be updated first to enable the changes to occur simultaneously in both CI and ART at the same time. This also gives ART a chance to validate the intended changes first. For instance, ART compiles most components with the Golang version being used by the control plane for a given OpenShift release. Exceptions to this convention (i.e. you believe your component must be compiled with a Golang version independent from the control plane) must be granted by the OpenShift staff engineers and communicated to the ART team.

Roles & Responsibilities:

• Component owners are responsible for ensuring these alignment PRs merge with passing tests OR that necessary metadata changes are reported to the ART team: @release-artists in #forum-ocp-art on Slack. If necessary, the changes required by this pull request can be introduced with a separate PR opened by the component team. Once the repository is aligned, this PR will be closed automatically.
• In particular, it could be that a job like verify-deps is complaining. In that case, please open a new PR with the dependency issues addressed (and base images bumped). ART-9595 for reference.
• Patch-manager or those with sufficient privileges within this repository may add any required labels to ensure the PR merges once tests are passing. In cases where ART config is canonical, downstream builds are already being built with these changes, and merging this PR only improves the fidelity of our CI. In cases where ART config is not canonical, this provides a grace period for the component team to align their CI with ART's configuration before it becomes canonical in product builds.

ART has been configured to reconcile your CI build root image (see https://docs.ci.openshift.org/docs/architecture/ci-operator/#build-root-image). In order for your upstream .ci-operator.yaml configuration to be honored, you must set the following in your openshift/release ci-operator configuration file:

build_root:
  from_repository: true

Change behavior of future PRs:

• In case you just want to follow the base images that ART suggests, you can configure additional labels to be set up automatically. This means that such a PR would merge without human intervention (and awareness!) in the future. To do so, open a PR to set the auto_label attribute in the image configuration. Example
• You can set a commit prefix, like UPSTREAM: <carry>:. An example.

If you have any questions about this pull request, please reach out to @release-artists in the #forum-ocp-art coreos slack channel.

[openshift-bot]

Created by job run https://art-jenkins.apps.prod-stable-spoke1-dc-iad2.itup.redhat.com/job/scheduled-builds/job/sync-ci-images/6362

[openshift-ci-robot]

@openshift-bot: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-34310, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

* bug is open, matching expected state (open) * bug target version (4.17.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.17.0) * bug is in the state New, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact: /cc @wangke19

The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

In response to [this](https://github.com/openshift/cluster-kube-apiserver-operator/pull/1691): >Updating ose-cluster-kube-apiserver-operator-container image to be consistent with ART for 4.17 >__TLDR__: >Product builds by ART can be configured for different base and builder images than corresponding CI >builds. This automated PR requests a change to CI configuration to align with ART's configuration; >please take steps to merge it quickly or contact ART to coordinate changes. > >The configuration in the following ART component metadata is driving this alignment request: >[ose-cluster-kube-apiserver-operator.yml](https://github.com/openshift/ocp-build-data/tree/4c1326094222f9209876f06833179a1b9178faf7/images/ose-cluster-kube-apiserver-operator.yml). > >__Detail__: > >This repository is out of sync with the downstream product builds for this component. The CI >configuration for at least one image differs from ART's expected product configuration. This should >be addressed to ensure that the component's CI testing accurate reflects what customers will >experience. > >Most of these PRs are opened as an ART-driven proposal to migrate base image or builder(s) to a >different version, usually prior to GA. The intent is to effect changes in both configurations >simultaneously without breaking either CI or ART builds, so usually ART builds are configured to >consider CI as canonical and attempt to match CI config until the PR merges to align both. ART may >also configure changes in GA releases with CI remaining canonical for a brief grace period to enable >CI to succeed and the alignment PR to merge. In either case, ART configuration will be made >canonical at some point (typically at branch-cut before GA or release dev-cut after GA), so it is >important to align CI configuration as soon as possible. > >PRs are also triggered when CI configuration changes without ART coordination, for instance to >change the number of builder images or to use a different golang version. These changes should be >coordinated with ART; whether ART configuration is canonical or not, preferably it would be updated >first to enable the changes to occur simultaneously in both CI and ART at the same time. This also >gives ART a chance to validate the intended changes first. For instance, ART compiles most >components with the Golang version being used by the control plane for a given OpenShift release. >Exceptions to this convention (i.e. you believe your component must be compiled with a Golang >version independent from the control plane) must be granted by the OpenShift staff engineers and >communicated to the ART team. > >__Roles & Responsibilities__: >- Component owners are responsible for ensuring these alignment PRs merge with passing > tests OR that necessary metadata changes are reported to the ART team: `@release-artists` > in `#forum-ocp-art` on Slack. If necessary, the changes required by this pull request can be > introduced with a separate PR opened by the component team. Once the repository is aligned, > this PR will be closed automatically. >- Patch-manager or those with sufficient privileges within this repository may add > any required labels to ensure the PR merges once tests are passing. In cases where ART config is > canonical, downstream builds are *already* being built with these changes, and merging this PR > only improves the fidelity of our CI. In cases where ART config is not canonical, this provides > a grace period for the component team to align their CI with ART's configuration before it becomes > canonical in product builds. > >ART has been configured to reconcile your CI build root image (see https://docs.ci.openshift.org/docs/architecture/ci-operator/#build-root-image). >In order for your upstream .ci-operator.yaml configuration to be honored, you must set the following in your openshift/release ci-operator configuration file: >``` >build_root: > from_repository: true >``` > >__Change behavior of future PRs__: >* In case you just want to follow the base images that ART suggests, you can configure additional labels to be > set up automatically. This means that such a PR would *merge without human intervention* (and awareness!) in the future. > To do so, open a PR to set the `auto_label` attribute in the image configuration. [Example](https://github.com/openshift-eng/ocp-build-data/pull/1778) >* You can set a commit prefix, like `UPSTREAM: : `. [An example](https://github.com/openshift-eng/ocp-build-data/blob/6831b59dddc5b63282076d3abe04593ad1945148/images/ose-cluster-api.yml#L11). > >If you have any questions about this pull request, please reach out to `@release-artists` in the `#forum-ocp-art` coreos slack channel. > Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available [here](https://prow.ci.openshift.org/command-help?repo=openshift%2Fcluster-kube-apiserver-operator). If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the [openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin](https://github.com/openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin/issues/new) repository.

[vrutkovs]

/approve /lgtm /retest

[openshift-ci[bot]]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: openshift-bot, vrutkovs

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files: - ~~[OWNERS](https://github.com/openshift/cluster-kube-apiserver-operator/blob/master/OWNERS)~~ [vrutkovs] Approvers can indicate their approval by writing `/approve` in a comment Approvers can cancel approval by writing `/approve cancel` in a comment

[openshift-ci-robot]

/retest-required

Remaining retests: 0 against base HEAD 09258494e5c99595825898f90cedb46d7b3964b4 and 2 for PR HEAD 62e3e728ab7da71d7d3690c78df0b68b51ef2aa3 in total

[vrutkovs]

/hold

verify-deps won't pass

[openshift-ci-robot]

@openshift-bot: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-34310, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

* bug is open, matching expected state (open) * bug target version (4.17.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.17.0) * bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact: /cc @wangke19

In response to [this](https://github.com/openshift/cluster-kube-apiserver-operator/pull/1691): >Updating ose-cluster-kube-apiserver-operator-container image to be consistent with ART for 4.17 >__TLDR__: >Product builds by ART can be configured for different base and builder images than corresponding CI >builds. This automated PR requests a change to CI configuration to align with ART's configuration; >please take steps to merge it quickly or contact ART to coordinate changes. > >The configuration in the following ART component metadata is driving this alignment request: >[ose-cluster-kube-apiserver-operator.yml](https://github.com/openshift/ocp-build-data/tree/54398c23417ea7da99175bcbf7f81bbe2371c451/images/ose-cluster-kube-apiserver-operator.yml). > >__Detail__: > >This repository is out of sync with the downstream product builds for this component. The CI >configuration for at least one image differs from ART's expected product configuration. This should >be addressed to ensure that the component's CI testing accurate reflects what customers will >experience. > >Most of these PRs are opened as an ART-driven proposal to migrate base image or builder(s) to a >different version, usually prior to GA. The intent is to effect changes in both configurations >simultaneously without breaking either CI or ART builds, so usually ART builds are configured to >consider CI as canonical and attempt to match CI config until the PR merges to align both. ART may >also configure changes in GA releases with CI remaining canonical for a brief grace period to enable >CI to succeed and the alignment PR to merge. In either case, ART configuration will be made >canonical at some point (typically at branch-cut before GA or release dev-cut after GA), so it is >important to align CI configuration as soon as possible. > >PRs are also triggered when CI configuration changes without ART coordination, for instance to >change the number of builder images or to use a different golang version. These changes should be >coordinated with ART; whether ART configuration is canonical or not, preferably it would be updated >first to enable the changes to occur simultaneously in both CI and ART at the same time. This also >gives ART a chance to validate the intended changes first. For instance, ART compiles most >components with the Golang version being used by the control plane for a given OpenShift release. >Exceptions to this convention (i.e. you believe your component must be compiled with a Golang >version independent from the control plane) must be granted by the OpenShift staff engineers and >communicated to the ART team. > >__Roles & Responsibilities__: >- Component owners are responsible for ensuring these alignment PRs merge with passing > tests OR that necessary metadata changes are reported to the ART team: `@release-artists` > in `#forum-ocp-art` on Slack. If necessary, the changes required by this pull request can be > introduced with a separate PR opened by the component team. Once the repository is aligned, > this PR will be closed automatically. >- Patch-manager or those with sufficient privileges within this repository may add > any required labels to ensure the PR merges once tests are passing. In cases where ART config is > canonical, downstream builds are *already* being built with these changes, and merging this PR > only improves the fidelity of our CI. In cases where ART config is not canonical, this provides > a grace period for the component team to align their CI with ART's configuration before it becomes > canonical in product builds. > >ART has been configured to reconcile your CI build root image (see https://docs.ci.openshift.org/docs/architecture/ci-operator/#build-root-image). >In order for your upstream .ci-operator.yaml configuration to be honored, you must set the following in your openshift/release ci-operator configuration file: >``` >build_root: > from_repository: true >``` > >__Change behavior of future PRs__: >* In case you just want to follow the base images that ART suggests, you can configure additional labels to be > set up automatically. This means that such a PR would *merge without human intervention* (and awareness!) in the future. > To do so, open a PR to set the `auto_label` attribute in the image configuration. [Example](https://github.com/openshift-eng/ocp-build-data/pull/1778) >* You can set a commit prefix, like `UPSTREAM: : `. [An example](https://github.com/openshift-eng/ocp-build-data/blob/6831b59dddc5b63282076d3abe04593ad1945148/images/ose-cluster-api.yml#L11). > >If you have any questions about this pull request, please reach out to `@release-artists` in the `#forum-ocp-art` coreos slack channel. > Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available [here](https://prow.ci.openshift.org/command-help?repo=openshift%2Fcluster-kube-apiserver-operator). If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the [openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin](https://github.com/openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin/issues/new) repository.

[vrutkovs]

/test verify-deps

[vrutkovs]

/retest

[vrutkovs]

/retest

[openshift-bot]

/bugzilla refresh

The requirements for Bugzilla bugs have changed (BZs linked to PRs on main branch need to target different OCP), recalculating validity.

[openshift-bot]

/bugzilla refresh

The requirements for Bugzilla bugs have changed (BZs linked to PRs on main branch need to target different OCP), recalculating validity.

[openshift-bot]

/jira refresh

The requirements for Jira bugs have changed (Jira issues linked to PRs on main branch need to target different OCP), recalculating validity.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@openshift-bot: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-34310, which is invalid:

• expected the bug to target either version "4.18." or "openshift-4.18.", but it targets "4.17.0" instead

Comment /jira refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Jira bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

In response to [this](https://github.com/openshift/cluster-kube-apiserver-operator/pull/1691#issuecomment-2277485870): >/jira refresh > >The requirements for Jira bugs have changed (Jira issues linked to PRs on main branch need to target different OCP), recalculating validity. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available [here](https://prow.ci.openshift.org/command-help?repo=openshift%2Fcluster-kube-apiserver-operator). If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the [openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin](https://github.com/openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin/issues/new) repository.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@openshift-bot: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-34310, which is invalid:

• release note text must be set and not match the template OR release note type must be set to "Release Note Not Required"
• expected Jira Issue OCPBUGS-34310 to depend on a bug targeting a version in 4.18.0 and in one of the following states: MODIFIED, ON_QA, VERIFIED, but no dependents were found

Comment /jira refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Jira bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

In response to [this](https://github.com/openshift/cluster-kube-apiserver-operator/pull/1691): >Updating ose-cluster-kube-apiserver-operator-container image to be consistent with ART for 4.17 >__TLDR__: >Product builds by ART can be configured for different base and builder images than corresponding CI >builds. This automated PR requests a change to CI configuration to align with ART's configuration; >please take steps to merge it quickly or contact ART to coordinate changes. > >The configuration in the following ART component metadata is driving this alignment request: >[ose-cluster-kube-apiserver-operator.yml](https://github.com/openshift/ocp-build-data/tree/909cfa385674fe822478d80c473814f048bb4061/images/ose-cluster-kube-apiserver-operator.yml). > >__Detail__: > >This repository is out of sync with the downstream product builds for this component. The CI >configuration for at least one image differs from ART's expected product configuration. This should >be addressed to ensure that the component's CI testing accurate reflects what customers will >experience. > >Most of these PRs are opened as an ART-driven proposal to migrate base image or builder(s) to a >different version, usually prior to GA. The intent is to effect changes in both configurations >simultaneously without breaking either CI or ART builds, so usually ART builds are configured to >consider CI as canonical and attempt to match CI config until the PR merges to align both. ART may >also configure changes in GA releases with CI remaining canonical for a brief grace period to enable >CI to succeed and the alignment PR to merge. In either case, ART configuration will be made >canonical at some point (typically at branch-cut before GA or release dev-cut after GA), so it is >important to align CI configuration as soon as possible. > >PRs are also triggered when CI configuration changes without ART coordination, for instance to >change the number of builder images or to use a different golang version. These changes should be >coordinated with ART; whether ART configuration is canonical or not, preferably it would be updated >first to enable the changes to occur simultaneously in both CI and ART at the same time. This also >gives ART a chance to validate the intended changes first. For instance, ART compiles most >components with the Golang version being used by the control plane for a given OpenShift release. >Exceptions to this convention (i.e. you believe your component must be compiled with a Golang >version independent from the control plane) must be granted by the OpenShift staff engineers and >communicated to the ART team. > >__Roles & Responsibilities__: >- Component owners are responsible for ensuring these alignment PRs merge with passing > tests OR that necessary metadata changes are reported to the ART team: `@release-artists` > in `#forum-ocp-art` on Slack. If necessary, the changes required by this pull request can be > introduced with a separate PR opened by the component team. Once the repository is aligned, > this PR will be closed automatically. >- In particular, it could be that a job like `verify-deps` is complaining. In that case, please open > a new PR with the dependency issues addressed (and base images bumped). [ART-9595](https://issues.redhat.com//browse/ART-9595) for reference. >- Patch-manager or those with sufficient privileges within this repository may add > any required labels to ensure the PR merges once tests are passing. In cases where ART config is > canonical, downstream builds are *already* being built with these changes, and merging this PR > only improves the fidelity of our CI. In cases where ART config is not canonical, this provides > a grace period for the component team to align their CI with ART's configuration before it becomes > canonical in product builds. > >ART has been configured to reconcile your CI build root image (see https://docs.ci.openshift.org/docs/architecture/ci-operator/#build-root-image). >In order for your upstream .ci-operator.yaml configuration to be honored, you must set the following in your openshift/release ci-operator configuration file: >``` >build_root: > from_repository: true >``` > >__Change behavior of future PRs__: >* In case you just want to follow the base images that ART suggests, you can configure additional labels to be > set up automatically. This means that such a PR would *merge without human intervention* (and awareness!) in the future. > To do so, open a PR to set the `auto_label` attribute in the image configuration. [Example](https://github.com/openshift-eng/ocp-build-data/pull/1778) >* You can set a commit prefix, like `UPSTREAM: : `. [An example](https://github.com/openshift-eng/ocp-build-data/blob/6831b59dddc5b63282076d3abe04593ad1945148/images/ose-cluster-api.yml#L11). > >If you have any questions about this pull request, please reach out to `@release-artists` in the `#forum-ocp-art` coreos slack channel. > Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available [here](https://prow.ci.openshift.org/command-help?repo=openshift%2Fcluster-kube-apiserver-operator). If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the [openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin](https://github.com/openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin/issues/new) repository.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@openshift-bot: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-34310, which is invalid:

• release note text must be set and not match the template OR release note type must be set to "Release Note Not Required". For more information you can reference the OpenShift Bug Process.
• expected Jira Issue OCPBUGS-34310 to depend on a bug targeting a version in 4.18.0 and in one of the following states: MODIFIED, ON_QA, VERIFIED, but no dependents were found

Comment /jira refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Jira bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

In response to [this](https://github.com/openshift/cluster-kube-apiserver-operator/pull/1691): >Updating ose-cluster-kube-apiserver-operator-container image to be consistent with ART for 4.17 >__TLDR__: >Product builds by ART can be configured for different base and builder images than corresponding CI >builds. This automated PR requests a change to CI configuration to align with ART's configuration; >please take steps to merge it quickly or contact ART to coordinate changes. > >The configuration in the following ART component metadata is driving this alignment request: >[ose-cluster-kube-apiserver-operator.yml](https://github.com/openshift/ocp-build-data/tree/478aa0aa403a1f56eefb2ac890255412ca185aab/images/ose-cluster-kube-apiserver-operator.yml). > >__Detail__: > >This repository is out of sync with the downstream product builds for this component. The CI >configuration for at least one image differs from ART's expected product configuration. This should >be addressed to ensure that the component's CI testing accurate reflects what customers will >experience. > >Most of these PRs are opened as an ART-driven proposal to migrate base image or builder(s) to a >different version, usually prior to GA. The intent is to effect changes in both configurations >simultaneously without breaking either CI or ART builds, so usually ART builds are configured to >consider CI as canonical and attempt to match CI config until the PR merges to align both. ART may >also configure changes in GA releases with CI remaining canonical for a brief grace period to enable >CI to succeed and the alignment PR to merge. In either case, ART configuration will be made >canonical at some point (typically at branch-cut before GA or release dev-cut after GA), so it is >important to align CI configuration as soon as possible. > >PRs are also triggered when CI configuration changes without ART coordination, for instance to >change the number of builder images or to use a different golang version. These changes should be >coordinated with ART; whether ART configuration is canonical or not, preferably it would be updated >first to enable the changes to occur simultaneously in both CI and ART at the same time. This also >gives ART a chance to validate the intended changes first. For instance, ART compiles most >components with the Golang version being used by the control plane for a given OpenShift release. >Exceptions to this convention (i.e. you believe your component must be compiled with a Golang >version independent from the control plane) must be granted by the OpenShift staff engineers and >communicated to the ART team. > >__Roles & Responsibilities__: >- Component owners are responsible for ensuring these alignment PRs merge with passing > tests OR that necessary metadata changes are reported to the ART team: `@release-artists` > in `#forum-ocp-art` on Slack. If necessary, the changes required by this pull request can be > introduced with a separate PR opened by the component team. Once the repository is aligned, > this PR will be closed automatically. >- In particular, it could be that a job like `verify-deps` is complaining. In that case, please open > a new PR with the dependency issues addressed (and base images bumped). [ART-9595](https://issues.redhat.com//browse/ART-9595) for reference. >- Patch-manager or those with sufficient privileges within this repository may add > any required labels to ensure the PR merges once tests are passing. In cases where ART config is > canonical, downstream builds are *already* being built with these changes, and merging this PR > only improves the fidelity of our CI. In cases where ART config is not canonical, this provides > a grace period for the component team to align their CI with ART's configuration before it becomes > canonical in product builds. > >ART has been configured to reconcile your CI build root image (see https://docs.ci.openshift.org/docs/architecture/ci-operator/#build-root-image). >In order for your upstream .ci-operator.yaml configuration to be honored, you must set the following in your openshift/release ci-operator configuration file: >``` >build_root: > from_repository: true >``` > >__Change behavior of future PRs__: >* In case you just want to follow the base images that ART suggests, you can configure additional labels to be > set up automatically. This means that such a PR would *merge without human intervention* (and awareness!) in the future. > To do so, open a PR to set the `auto_label` attribute in the image configuration. [Example](https://github.com/openshift-eng/ocp-build-data/pull/1778) >* You can set a commit prefix, like `UPSTREAM: : `. [An example](https://github.com/openshift-eng/ocp-build-data/blob/6831b59dddc5b63282076d3abe04593ad1945148/images/ose-cluster-api.yml#L11). > >If you have any questions about this pull request, please reach out to `@release-artists` in the `#forum-ocp-art` coreos slack channel. > Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available [here](https://prow.ci.openshift.org/command-help?repo=openshift%2Fcluster-kube-apiserver-operator). If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the [openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin](https://github.com/openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin/issues/new) repository.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@openshift-bot: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-34310, which is invalid:

• expected Jira Issue OCPBUGS-34310 to depend on a bug targeting a version in 4.18.0 and in one of the following states: MODIFIED, ON_QA, VERIFIED, but no dependents were found

Comment /jira refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Jira bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

In response to [this](https://github.com/openshift/cluster-kube-apiserver-operator/pull/1691): >Updating ose-cluster-kube-apiserver-operator-container image to be consistent with ART for 4.17 >__TLDR__: >Product builds by ART can be configured for different base and builder images than corresponding CI >builds. This automated PR requests a change to CI configuration to align with ART's configuration; >please take steps to merge it quickly or contact ART to coordinate changes. > >The configuration in the following ART component metadata is driving this alignment request: >[ose-cluster-kube-apiserver-operator.yml](https://github.com/openshift/ocp-build-data/tree/a766adea3c1c954d36052153083a7d2840929113/images/ose-cluster-kube-apiserver-operator.yml). > >__Detail__: > >This repository is out of sync with the downstream product builds for this component. The CI >configuration for at least one image differs from ART's expected product configuration. This should >be addressed to ensure that the component's CI testing accurate reflects what customers will >experience. > >Most of these PRs are opened as an ART-driven proposal to migrate base image or builder(s) to a >different version, usually prior to GA. The intent is to effect changes in both configurations >simultaneously without breaking either CI or ART builds, so usually ART builds are configured to >consider CI as canonical and attempt to match CI config until the PR merges to align both. ART may >also configure changes in GA releases with CI remaining canonical for a brief grace period to enable >CI to succeed and the alignment PR to merge. In either case, ART configuration will be made >canonical at some point (typically at branch-cut before GA or release dev-cut after GA), so it is >important to align CI configuration as soon as possible. > >PRs are also triggered when CI configuration changes without ART coordination, for instance to >change the number of builder images or to use a different golang version. These changes should be >coordinated with ART; whether ART configuration is canonical or not, preferably it would be updated >first to enable the changes to occur simultaneously in both CI and ART at the same time. This also >gives ART a chance to validate the intended changes first. For instance, ART compiles most >components with the Golang version being used by the control plane for a given OpenShift release. >Exceptions to this convention (i.e. you believe your component must be compiled with a Golang >version independent from the control plane) must be granted by the OpenShift staff engineers and >communicated to the ART team. > >__Roles & Responsibilities__: >- Component owners are responsible for ensuring these alignment PRs merge with passing > tests OR that necessary metadata changes are reported to the ART team: `@release-artists` > in `#forum-ocp-art` on Slack. If necessary, the changes required by this pull request can be > introduced with a separate PR opened by the component team. Once the repository is aligned, > this PR will be closed automatically. >- In particular, it could be that a job like `verify-deps` is complaining. In that case, please open > a new PR with the dependency issues addressed (and base images bumped). [ART-9595](https://issues.redhat.com//browse/ART-9595) for reference. >- Patch-manager or those with sufficient privileges within this repository may add > any required labels to ensure the PR merges once tests are passing. In cases where ART config is > canonical, downstream builds are *already* being built with these changes, and merging this PR > only improves the fidelity of our CI. In cases where ART config is not canonical, this provides > a grace period for the component team to align their CI with ART's configuration before it becomes > canonical in product builds. > >ART has been configured to reconcile your CI build root image (see https://docs.ci.openshift.org/docs/architecture/ci-operator/#build-root-image). >In order for your upstream .ci-operator.yaml configuration to be honored, you must set the following in your openshift/release ci-operator configuration file: >``` >build_root: > from_repository: true >``` > >__Change behavior of future PRs__: >* In case you just want to follow the base images that ART suggests, you can configure additional labels to be > set up automatically. This means that such a PR would *merge without human intervention* (and awareness!) in the future. > To do so, open a PR to set the `auto_label` attribute in the image configuration. [Example](https://github.com/openshift-eng/ocp-build-data/pull/1778) >* You can set a commit prefix, like `UPSTREAM: : `. [An example](https://github.com/openshift-eng/ocp-build-data/blob/6831b59dddc5b63282076d3abe04593ad1945148/images/ose-cluster-api.yml#L11). > >If you have any questions about this pull request, please reach out to `@release-artists` in the `#forum-ocp-art` coreos slack channel. > Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available [here](https://prow.ci.openshift.org/command-help?repo=openshift%2Fcluster-kube-apiserver-operator). If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the [openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin](https://github.com/openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin/issues/new) repository.

[wangke19]

/retest-required

[wangke19]

/test verify-deps

[openshift-ci[bot]]

@openshift-bot: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name	Commit	Details	Required	Rerun command
ci/prow/e2e-gcp-operator-single-node	62e3e728ab7da71d7d3690c78df0b68b51ef2aa3	link	false	/test e2e-gcp-operator-single-node
ci/prow/e2e-aws-operator-disruptive-single-node	62e3e728ab7da71d7d3690c78df0b68b51ef2aa3	link	false	/test e2e-aws-operator-disruptive-single-node
ci/prow/verify-deps	62e3e728ab7da71d7d3690c78df0b68b51ef2aa3	link	true	/test verify-deps

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available [here](https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/guide/pull-requests.md). If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the [kubernetes-sigs/prow](https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/prow/issues/new?title=Prow%20issue:) repository. I understand the commands that are listed [here](https://go.k8s.io/bot-commands).

[wangke19]

Closing it, will fix in pr https://github.com/openshift/cluster-kube-apiserver-operator/pull/1738

[wangke19]

/close

[openshift-ci[bot]]

@wangke19: Closed this PR.

In response to [this](https://github.com/openshift/cluster-kube-apiserver-operator/pull/1691#issuecomment-2373039310): >/close Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available [here](https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/guide/pull-requests.md). If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the [kubernetes-sigs/prow](https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/prow/issues/new?title=Prow%20issue:) repository.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@openshift-bot: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-34310. The bug has been updated to no longer refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

In response to [this](https://github.com/openshift/cluster-kube-apiserver-operator/pull/1691): >Updating ose-cluster-kube-apiserver-operator-container image to be consistent with ART for 4.17 >__TLDR__: >Product builds by ART can be configured for different base and builder images than corresponding CI >builds. This automated PR requests a change to CI configuration to align with ART's configuration; >please take steps to merge it quickly or contact ART to coordinate changes. > >The configuration in the following ART component metadata is driving this alignment request: >[ose-cluster-kube-apiserver-operator.yml](https://github.com/openshift/ocp-build-data/tree/e3b671caa4b94ad7982ae35276249cb6e88d1d6f/images/ose-cluster-kube-apiserver-operator.yml). > >__Detail__: > >This repository is out of sync with the downstream product builds for this component. The CI >configuration for at least one image differs from ART's expected product configuration. This should >be addressed to ensure that the component's CI testing accurate reflects what customers will >experience. > >Most of these PRs are opened as an ART-driven proposal to migrate base image or builder(s) to a >different version, usually prior to GA. The intent is to effect changes in both configurations >simultaneously without breaking either CI or ART builds, so usually ART builds are configured to >consider CI as canonical and attempt to match CI config until the PR merges to align both. ART may >also configure changes in GA releases with CI remaining canonical for a brief grace period to enable >CI to succeed and the alignment PR to merge. In either case, ART configuration will be made >canonical at some point (typically at branch-cut before GA or release dev-cut after GA), so it is >important to align CI configuration as soon as possible. > >PRs are also triggered when CI configuration changes without ART coordination, for instance to >change the number of builder images or to use a different golang version. These changes should be >coordinated with ART; whether ART configuration is canonical or not, preferably it would be updated >first to enable the changes to occur simultaneously in both CI and ART at the same time. This also >gives ART a chance to validate the intended changes first. For instance, ART compiles most >components with the Golang version being used by the control plane for a given OpenShift release. >Exceptions to this convention (i.e. you believe your component must be compiled with a Golang >version independent from the control plane) must be granted by the OpenShift staff engineers and >communicated to the ART team. > >__Roles & Responsibilities__: >- Component owners are responsible for ensuring these alignment PRs merge with passing > tests OR that necessary metadata changes are reported to the ART team: `@release-artists` > in `#forum-ocp-art` on Slack. If necessary, the changes required by this pull request can be > introduced with a separate PR opened by the component team. Once the repository is aligned, > this PR will be closed automatically. >- In particular, it could be that a job like `verify-deps` is complaining. In that case, please open > a new PR with the dependency issues addressed (and base images bumped). [ART-9595](https://issues.redhat.com//browse/ART-9595) for reference. >- Patch-manager or those with sufficient privileges within this repository may add > any required labels to ensure the PR merges once tests are passing. In cases where ART config is > canonical, downstream builds are *already* being built with these changes, and merging this PR > only improves the fidelity of our CI. In cases where ART config is not canonical, this provides > a grace period for the component team to align their CI with ART's configuration before it becomes > canonical in product builds. > >ART has been configured to reconcile your CI build root image (see https://docs.ci.openshift.org/docs/architecture/ci-operator/#build-root-image). >In order for your upstream .ci-operator.yaml configuration to be honored, you must set the following in your openshift/release ci-operator configuration file: >``` >build_root: > from_repository: true >``` > >__Change behavior of future PRs__: >* In case you just want to follow the base images that ART suggests, you can configure additional labels to be > set up automatically. This means that such a PR would *merge without human intervention* (and awareness!) in the future. > To do so, open a PR to set the `auto_label` attribute in the image configuration. [Example](https://github.com/openshift-eng/ocp-build-data/pull/1778) >* You can set a commit prefix, like `UPSTREAM: : `. [An example](https://github.com/openshift-eng/ocp-build-data/blob/6831b59dddc5b63282076d3abe04593ad1945148/images/ose-cluster-api.yml#L11). > >If you have any questions about this pull request, please reach out to `@release-artists` in the `#forum-ocp-art` coreos slack channel. > Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available [here](https://prow.ci.openshift.org/command-help?repo=openshift%2Fcluster-kube-apiserver-operator). If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the [openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin](https://github.com/openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin/issues/new) repository.