[release-4.16] OCPBUGS-77299: go mod vendor for 4.16 by fgallott · Pull Request #2615 · openshift/kubernetes

fgallott · 2026-03-09T13:59:58Z

ART can't build openshift-enterprise-hyperkube hermetically, versions openshift-4.16 backwards

The error is the following:

Error: PackageRejected: The content of the vendor directory is not consistent with go.mod. Please check the logs for more details.
  Please try running `go mod vendor` and committing the changes.
  Note that you may need to `git add --force` ignored files in the vendor/ dir.

successful build with these changes

openshift-ci-robot · 2026-03-09T14:00:07Z

@fgallott: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-77299, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state.

7 validation(s) were run on this bug

bug is open, matching expected state (open)
bug target version (4.16.z) matches configured target version for branch (4.16.z)
bug is in the state New, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)
release note type set to "Release Note Not Required"
dependent bug Jira Issue OCPBUGS-77300 is in the state Closed (Done), which is one of the valid states (VERIFIED, RELEASE PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA), CLOSED (CURRENT RELEASE), CLOSED (DONE), CLOSED (DONE-ERRATA))
dependent Jira Issue OCPBUGS-77300 targets the "4.17.z" version, which is one of the valid target versions: 4.17.0, 4.17.z
bug has dependents

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @wangke19

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

Details

In response to this:

ART can't build openshift-enterprise-hyperkube hermetically, versions openshift-4.16 backwards

The error is the following:
Error: PackageRejected: The content of the vendor directory is not consistent with go.mod. Please check the logs for more details.
 Please try running `go mod vendor` and committing the changes.
 Note that you may need to `git add --force` ignored files in the vendor/ dir.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

openshift-ci-robot · 2026-03-09T14:00:09Z

@fgallott: the contents of this pull request could not be automatically validated.

The following commits could not be validated and must be approved by a top-level approver:

5b5c397|hermetic 4.16: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message

Comment /validate-backports to re-evaluate validity of the upstream PRs, for example when they are merged upstream.

coderabbitai · 2026-03-09T14:03:17Z

Important

Review skipped

Auto reviews are disabled on base/target branches other than the default branch.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 3c03785f-33d4-4c01-8ab4-5b16e9f4084c

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:

🔍 Trigger review

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

Create PR with unit tests

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

openshift-ci-robot · 2026-03-10T08:24:46Z

@fgallott: the contents of this pull request could not be automatically validated.

The following commits could not be validated and must be approved by a top-level approver:

7ee1873|UPSTREAM: : hermetic 4.16: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message

Comment /validate-backports to re-evaluate validity of the upstream PRs, for example when they are merged upstream.

fgallott · 2026-03-10T08:28:13Z

@bertinatto may you help me review this one? thank you!

bertinatto · 2026-03-11T18:54:14Z

@bertinatto may you help me review this one? thank you!

@fgallott there are several non-optional jobs failing.

We can't use go mod directly in this repo, we use the hack/update-vendor.sh script instead.

openshift-ci-robot · 2026-03-12T13:20:18Z

@fgallott: the contents of this pull request could not be automatically validated.

The following commits could not be validated and must be approved by a top-level approver:

03a9c94|UPSTREAM: : update hack/update-vendor.sh: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
391e230|UPSTREAM: : run hack/update-vendor.sh: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message

Comment /validate-backports to re-evaluate validity of the upstream PRs, for example when they are merged upstream.

openshift-ci-robot · 2026-03-12T13:21:05Z

@fgallott: the contents of this pull request could not be automatically validated.

The following commits could not be validated and must be approved by a top-level approver:

03a9c94|UPSTREAM: : update hack/update-vendor.sh: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
a9c0864|UPSTREAM: : run hack/update-vendor.sh: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message

Comment /validate-backports to re-evaluate validity of the upstream PRs, for example when they are merged upstream.

openshift-ci-robot · 2026-03-12T13:23:55Z

@fgallott: the contents of this pull request could not be automatically validated.

The following commits could not be validated and must be approved by a top-level approver:

03a9c94|UPSTREAM: : update hack/update-vendor.sh: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
f21be98|UPSTREAM: : run hack/update-vendor.sh: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message

Comment /validate-backports to re-evaluate validity of the upstream PRs, for example when they are merged upstream.

openshift-ci-robot · 2026-03-12T13:25:28Z

@fgallott: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-77299, which is valid.

7 validation(s) were run on this bug

bug is open, matching expected state (open)
bug target version (4.16.z) matches configured target version for branch (4.16.z)
bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)
release note type set to "Release Note Not Required"
dependent bug Jira Issue OCPBUGS-77300 is in the state Closed (Done), which is one of the valid states (VERIFIED, RELEASE PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA), CLOSED (CURRENT RELEASE), CLOSED (DONE), CLOSED (DONE-ERRATA))
dependent Jira Issue OCPBUGS-77300 targets the "4.17.z" version, which is one of the valid target versions: 4.17.0, 4.17.z
bug has dependents

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @wangke19

Details

In response to this:

ART can't build openshift-enterprise-hyperkube hermetically, versions openshift-4.16 backwards

The error is the following:
Error: PackageRejected: The content of the vendor directory is not consistent with go.mod. Please check the logs for more details.
 Please try running `go mod vendor` and committing the changes.
 Note that you may need to `git add --force` ignored files in the vendor/ dir.
Root Cause

On release-4.16, hack/update-vendor.sh replaces vendored staging modules (under vendor/k8s.io/) with symlinks pointing to ../../staging/src/k8s.io/. Hermetic builds require the vendor directory to be fully self-contained and do not follow symlinks that reference files outside vendor/.

This issue does not affect release-4.17+ because upstream Kubernetes switched from go mod vendor + staging symlinks to go work vendor (Go workspaces), which vendors staging modules as real files.

Fix

Modified hack/update-vendor.sh Phase 8 to copy staging components into vendor/ (cp -r) instead of symlinking them (ln -s). This makes the vendor directory self-contained and compatible with hermetic builds, while preserving identical build behavior since Go treats vendored symlinks and real files the same way.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

openshift-ci-robot · 2026-03-27T14:48:29Z

@fgallott: the contents of this pull request could not be automatically validated.

The following commits could not be validated and must be approved by a top-level approver:

0a5c25d|UPSTREAM: : update hack/update-vendor.sh: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
f7dc62a|UPSTREAM: : run hack/update-vendor.sh: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message

Comment /validate-backports to re-evaluate validity of the upstream PRs, for example when they are merged upstream.

openshift-ci-robot · 2026-03-27T14:56:28Z

@fgallott: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-77299, which is valid.

7 validation(s) were run on this bug

bug is open, matching expected state (open)
bug target version (4.16.z) matches configured target version for branch (4.16.z)
bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)
release note type set to "Release Note Not Required"
dependent bug Jira Issue OCPBUGS-77300 is in the state Closed (Done), which is one of the valid states (VERIFIED, RELEASE PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA), CLOSED (CURRENT RELEASE), CLOSED (DONE), CLOSED (DONE-ERRATA))
dependent Jira Issue OCPBUGS-77300 targets the "4.17.z" version, which is one of the valid target versions: 4.17.0, 4.17.z
bug has dependents

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @wangke19

Details

In response to this:

ART can't build openshift-enterprise-hyperkube hermetically, versions openshift-4.16 backwards

The error is the following:
Error: PackageRejected: The content of the vendor directory is not consistent with go.mod. Please check the logs for more details.
 Please try running `go mod vendor` and committing the changes.
 Note that you may need to `git add --force` ignored files in the vendor/ dir.
successful build with these changes

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

rh-pre-commit.version: 2.3.2 rh-pre-commit.check-secrets: ENABLED

openshift-ci-robot · 2026-03-27T15:18:00Z

@fgallott: the contents of this pull request could not be automatically validated.

The following commits could not be validated and must be approved by a top-level approver:

0a5c25d|UPSTREAM: : update hack/update-vendor.sh: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
d31f989|UPSTREAM: : fix staging test discovery after hermetic vendor: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
f7dc62a|UPSTREAM: : run hack/update-vendor.sh: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message

Comment /validate-backports to re-evaluate validity of the upstream PRs, for example when they are merged upstream.

openshift-ci-robot · 2026-03-27T16:16:14Z

@fgallott: the contents of this pull request could not be automatically validated.

The following commits could not be validated and must be approved by a top-level approver:

0a5c25d|UPSTREAM: : update hack/update-vendor.sh: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
7137917|UPSTREAM: : fix unit tests: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
cc0a111|UPSTREAM: : fix verify after hermetic vendor: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
d31f989|UPSTREAM: : fix staging test discovery after hermetic vendor: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
f7dc62a|UPSTREAM: : run hack/update-vendor.sh: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message

Comment /validate-backports to re-evaluate validity of the upstream PRs, for example when they are merged upstream.

openshift-ci · 2026-03-27T16:22:00Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: fgallott
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign bertinatto for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

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

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

DOWNSTREAM_OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

fgallott · 2026-03-28T05:50:44Z

/test verify

rh-pre-commit.version: 2.3.2 rh-pre-commit.check-secrets: ENABLED

openshift-ci-robot · 2026-03-29T14:38:59Z

@fgallott: the contents of this pull request could not be automatically validated.

The following commits could not be validated and must be approved by a top-level approver:

0a5c25d|UPSTREAM: : update hack/update-vendor.sh: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
46837a4|UPSTREAM: : fix unit tests: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
cc30840|UPSTREAM: : fix verify after hermetic vendor: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
d31f989|UPSTREAM: : fix staging test discovery after hermetic vendor: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
f7dc62a|UPSTREAM: : run hack/update-vendor.sh: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message

Comment /validate-backports to re-evaluate validity of the upstream PRs, for example when they are merged upstream.

openshift-ci-robot · 2026-03-29T15:16:38Z

@fgallott: the contents of this pull request could not be automatically validated.

The following commits could not be validated and must be approved by a top-level approver:

0a5c25d|UPSTREAM: : update hack/update-vendor.sh: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
46837a4|UPSTREAM: : fix unit tests: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
bab2253|UPSTREAM: : fix verify after hermetic vendor: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
d31f989|UPSTREAM: : fix staging test discovery after hermetic vendor: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
f7dc62a|UPSTREAM: : run hack/update-vendor.sh: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message

Comment /validate-backports to re-evaluate validity of the upstream PRs, for example when they are merged upstream.

openshift-ci-robot · 2026-03-29T15:50:14Z

@fgallott: the contents of this pull request could not be automatically validated.

The following commits could not be validated and must be approved by a top-level approver:

0a5c25d|UPSTREAM: : update hack/update-vendor.sh: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
46837a4|UPSTREAM: : fix unit tests: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
9b43726|UPSTREAM: : fix verify after hermetic vendor: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
d31f989|UPSTREAM: : fix staging test discovery after hermetic vendor: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
f7dc62a|UPSTREAM: : run hack/update-vendor.sh: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message

Comment /validate-backports to re-evaluate validity of the upstream PRs, for example when they are merged upstream.

rh-pre-commit.version: 2.3.2 rh-pre-commit.check-secrets: ENABLED

openshift-ci-robot · 2026-03-30T06:43:44Z

@fgallott: the contents of this pull request could not be automatically validated.

The following commits could not be validated and must be approved by a top-level approver:

0a5c25d|UPSTREAM: : update hack/update-vendor.sh: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
46837a4|UPSTREAM: : fix unit tests: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
a69a693|UPSTREAM: : fix verify after hermetic vendor: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
d31f989|UPSTREAM: : fix staging test discovery after hermetic vendor: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
f7dc62a|UPSTREAM: : run hack/update-vendor.sh: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message

Comment /validate-backports to re-evaluate validity of the upstream PRs, for example when they are merged upstream.

openshift-ci-robot · 2026-03-30T07:49:01Z

@fgallott: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-77299, which is valid.

7 validation(s) were run on this bug

bug is open, matching expected state (open)
bug target version (4.16.z) matches configured target version for branch (4.16.z)
bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)
release note type set to "Release Note Not Required"
dependent bug Jira Issue OCPBUGS-77300 is in the state Closed (Done), which is one of the valid states (VERIFIED, RELEASE PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA), CLOSED (CURRENT RELEASE), CLOSED (DONE), CLOSED (DONE-ERRATA))
dependent Jira Issue OCPBUGS-77300 targets the "4.17.z" version, which is one of the valid target versions: 4.17.0, 4.17.z
bug has dependents

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @wangke19

Details

In response to this:

ART can't build openshift-enterprise-hyperkube hermetically, versions openshift-4.16 backwards

The error is the following:
Error: PackageRejected: The content of the vendor directory is not consistent with go.mod. Please check the logs for more details.
 Please try running `go mod vendor` and committing the changes.
 Note that you may need to `git add --force` ignored files in the vendor/ dir.
successful build with these changes

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

fgallott · 2026-03-30T11:04:53Z

@bertinatto I fixed the tests, may you have a look now?

bertinatto · 2026-04-10T20:31:18Z


 function codegen::informers() {
-    GO111MODULE=on GOPROXY=off go install \
+    GO111MODULE=on GOFLAGS=-mod=mod go install \


I believe it's safer to use -mod=readonly instead?

good call, it should be indeed safer! I'll switch all of them to -mod=readonly

@bertinatto I've updated all the PRs

bertinatto · 2026-04-10T20:34:03Z

+# staging/src/k8s.io/<repo>. For hermetic builds the vendor directory must be
+# exactly what `go mod vendor` produces (no symlinks, no extra files, and
+# modules.txt must not be modified). The go mod vendor command already handles
+# the staging replace directives in go.mod and vendors the imported packages.


It's not clear to me how you avoided the problem that the linking fixed. Do you mind explaining that?

Do I understand correctly that linking was done because go mod vendor doesn't copy files that were not directly imported, like test files?

yes, you're right. the symlinks existed because go mod vendor only copies imported packages, but the codegen tools expect vendor/k8s.io/<repo> to contain the full source tree (including as you said test packages that aren't directly imported).

I'm not actually avoiding the problem, but simply moving the solution. The symlinks are removed from update-vendor.sh so the vendor directory stays clean for hermetic builds (Konflux requires vendor/ to match exactly what go mod vendor produces). And in update-codegen.sh the symlinks are temporarily recreated before codegen runs, then everything is restored via a trap on EXIT. This way the vendor directory is correct for builds, and codegen still has access to the full staging source trees when it needs them.

openshift-ci-robot · 2026-04-13T06:32:33Z

@fgallott: the contents of this pull request could not be automatically validated.

The following commits could not be validated and must be approved by a top-level approver:

0a5c25d|UPSTREAM: : update hack/update-vendor.sh: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
46837a4|UPSTREAM: : fix unit tests: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
a69a693|UPSTREAM: : fix verify after hermetic vendor: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
d31f989|UPSTREAM: : fix staging test discovery after hermetic vendor: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
e915275|UPSTREAM: : switch to -mod=readonly: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
f7dc62a|UPSTREAM: : run hack/update-vendor.sh: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message

Comment /validate-backports to re-evaluate validity of the upstream PRs, for example when they are merged upstream.

openshift-ci-robot · 2026-04-13T06:40:43Z

@fgallott: the contents of this pull request could not be automatically validated.

The following commits could not be validated and must be approved by a top-level approver:

0a5c25d|UPSTREAM: : update hack/update-vendor.sh: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
46837a4|UPSTREAM: : fix unit tests: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
8876375|UPSTREAM: : switch to -mod=readonly: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
a69a693|UPSTREAM: : fix verify after hermetic vendor: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
d31f989|UPSTREAM: : fix staging test discovery after hermetic vendor: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
f7dc62a|UPSTREAM: : run hack/update-vendor.sh: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message

Comment /validate-backports to re-evaluate validity of the upstream PRs, for example when they are merged upstream.

rh-pre-commit.version: 2.3.2 rh-pre-commit.check-secrets: ENABLED

openshift-ci-robot · 2026-04-13T07:45:00Z

@fgallott: the contents of this pull request could not be automatically validated.

The following commits could not be validated and must be approved by a top-level approver:

0a5c25d|UPSTREAM: : update hack/update-vendor.sh: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
46837a4|UPSTREAM: : fix unit tests: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
a69a693|UPSTREAM: : fix verify after hermetic vendor: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
d31f989|UPSTREAM: : fix staging test discovery after hermetic vendor: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
ee14eb4|UPSTREAM: : switch to -mod=readonly: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
f7dc62a|UPSTREAM: : run hack/update-vendor.sh: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message

Comment /validate-backports to re-evaluate validity of the upstream PRs, for example when they are merged upstream.

openshift-ci · 2026-04-13T12:44:35Z

@fgallott: all tests passed!

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Details

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

openshift-ci bot requested a review from wangke19 March 9, 2026 14:00

fgallott mentioned this pull request Mar 9, 2026

[release-4.15] OCPBUGS-77466: go mod vendor for 4.15 #2616

Open

openshift-ci bot requested review from deads2k and tkashem March 9, 2026 14:02

openshift-ci bot added the vendor-update Touching vendor dir or related files label Mar 9, 2026

fgallott mentioned this pull request Mar 9, 2026

[release-4.14] OCPBUGS-77467: go mod vendor for 4.14 #2617

Open

This was referenced Mar 9, 2026

[release-4.13] OCPBUGS-77468: go mod vendor for 4.13 #2618

Open

[release-4.12] OCPBUGS-77469: go mod vendor for 4.12 #2619

Open

fgallott force-pushed the hermetic-4.16 branch from 5b5c397 to 7ee1873 Compare March 10, 2026 08:24

fgallott force-pushed the hermetic-4.16 branch from 7ee1873 to 391e230 Compare March 12, 2026 13:20

fgallott force-pushed the hermetic-4.16 branch from 391e230 to a9c0864 Compare March 12, 2026 13:20

fgallott marked this pull request as draft March 12, 2026 13:21

openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Mar 12, 2026

fgallott force-pushed the hermetic-4.16 branch from a9c0864 to f21be98 Compare March 12, 2026 13:23

fgallott marked this pull request as ready for review March 12, 2026 13:24

openshift-ci bot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Mar 12, 2026

openshift-ci bot requested a review from bertinatto March 12, 2026 13:44

fgallott marked this pull request as ready for review March 27, 2026 14:56

openshift-ci bot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Mar 27, 2026

openshift-ci bot requested a review from jerpeter1 March 27, 2026 14:57

UPSTREAM: <carry>: fix staging test discovery after hermetic vendor

d31f989

rh-pre-commit.version: 2.3.2 rh-pre-commit.check-secrets: ENABLED

UPSTREAM: <carry>: fix unit tests

46837a4

rh-pre-commit.version: 2.3.2 rh-pre-commit.check-secrets: ENABLED

fgallott force-pushed the hermetic-4.16 branch from 7137917 to cc30840 Compare March 29, 2026 14:38

fgallott force-pushed the hermetic-4.16 branch from cc30840 to bab2253 Compare March 29, 2026 15:16

fgallott force-pushed the hermetic-4.16 branch from bab2253 to 9b43726 Compare March 29, 2026 15:50

UPSTREAM: <carry>: fix verify after hermetic vendor

a69a693

rh-pre-commit.version: 2.3.2 rh-pre-commit.check-secrets: ENABLED

fgallott force-pushed the hermetic-4.16 branch from 9b43726 to a69a693 Compare March 30, 2026 06:43

bertinatto reviewed Apr 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

fgallott force-pushed the hermetic-4.16 branch from e915275 to 8876375 Compare April 13, 2026 06:40

UPSTREAM: <carry>: switch to -mod=readonly

ee14eb4

rh-pre-commit.version: 2.3.2 rh-pre-commit.check-secrets: ENABLED

fgallott force-pushed the hermetic-4.16 branch from 8876375 to ee14eb4 Compare April 13, 2026 07:44

Conversation

fgallott commented Mar 9, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Mar 9, 2026

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Mar 9, 2026

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot commented Mar 9, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Review skipped

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Mar 10, 2026

Uh oh!

fgallott commented Mar 10, 2026

Uh oh!

bertinatto commented Mar 11, 2026

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Mar 12, 2026

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Mar 12, 2026

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Mar 12, 2026

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Mar 12, 2026

Root Cause

Fix

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Mar 27, 2026

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Mar 27, 2026

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Mar 27, 2026

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Mar 27, 2026

Uh oh!

openshift-ci bot commented Mar 27, 2026

Uh oh!

fgallott commented Mar 28, 2026

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Mar 29, 2026

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Mar 29, 2026

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Mar 29, 2026

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Mar 30, 2026

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Mar 30, 2026

Uh oh!

fgallott commented Mar 30, 2026

Uh oh!

bertinatto Apr 10, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

fgallott Apr 13, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

fgallott Apr 14, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bertinatto Apr 10, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bertinatto Apr 10, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

fgallott Apr 13, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Apr 13, 2026

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Apr 13, 2026

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Apr 13, 2026

Uh oh!

openshift-ci bot commented Apr 13, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

fgallott commented Mar 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading

coderabbitai bot commented Mar 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading