Release Qualifying Jobs Support (part 1) #711

bradmwilliams · 2025-11-04T19:44:45Z

Adding initial support for Release Qualifying Jobs. This introduces the Qualifiers stanza into the ReleaseVerification definitions. It also adds support for specifying the --release-qualifiers-config-path option to specify the location of the file holding the supported Release Qualifier definitions.

In order for a ReleaseQualifier to be applied to a ReleaseVerificationJob, it must be specified as part of the job definition in the respective ReleaseConfig, like:

    "osd-aws": {
      "optional": true,
      "maxRetries": 2,
      "prowJob": {
        "name": "periodic-ci-openshift-release-master-nightly-4.19-osd-aws"
      },  
      "qualifiers": {
        "rosa": {}, 
        "hcm": {}
      }   
    },

Any parameter that are provided will override their corresponding values in the ReleaseQualifiersConfig (specified via the --release-qualifiers-config-path option), like:

    "osd-aws": {
      "optional": true,
      "maxRetries": 2,
      "prowJob": {
        "name": "periodic-ci-openshift-release-master-nightly-4.19-osd-aws"
      },  
      "qualifiers": {
        "rosa": {}, 
        "hcm": {
           "enabled": false,
           "badgeName": "HCM",
           "summary": "Hybrid Cloud Management",
           "description": "A longer description when displaying badge details",
           "payloadBadge": "Yes"
        }
      }   
    },

The ReleaseQualifiersConfig will be a YAML file located in the openshift/release repository and contains all the available Qualifiers for use in the Release Verification Process, like:

---
qualifiers:
  rosa:
    enabled: true
    badgeName: "ROSA"
    summary: "RedHat OpenShift on AWS"
    description: "A longer description when displaying badge details"
    payloadBadge: "Yes"
  hcm:
    enabled: true
    badgeName: "HCM"
    summary: "Hybrid Cloud Management"
    description: "A longer description when displaying badge details"
    payloadBadge: "Yes"
    notifications:
      slack:
        escalations:
          - name: "monitor"
            period: "24h"
            minFailures: 2
            channel: "#forum-..."
            mentions:
              - "@ocm-support"
              - "@patch-manager"
          - name: "high"
            period: "72h"
            minFailures: 8
            channel: "#forum-..."
            mentions:
              - "@hcm-escalation-manager"

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

bradmwilliams · 2025-11-04T19:45:42Z

/cc @jupierce

bradmwilliams · 2025-11-05T01:45:07Z

/hold
Want to watch this roll out

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

bradmwilliams · 2025-11-06T18:32:41Z

cmd/release-controller/config_validate.go

I added these changes, specifically, to leverage the pre-existing presubmit job, in openshift/release, to validate the new release qualifiers config file.

AlexNPavel · 2025-11-06T22:42:09Z

cmd/release-controller/config_validate_test.go

+		{
+			name: "Good config with nil qualifier",
+			configs: []releasecontroller.ReleaseConfig{{
+				Name: "4.19.0-0.nightly",
+				Verify: map[string]releasecontroller.ReleaseVerification{
+					"osd-aws": {
+						Optional:   true,
+						MaxRetries: 2,
+						ProwJob: &releasecontroller.ProwJobVerification{
+							Name: "periodic-ci-openshift-release-master-nightly-4.19-osd-aws",
+						},
+						Qualifiers: releasequalifiers.ReleaseQualifiers{
+							"rosa": {},
+						},
+					},
+				},
+			},
+			},
+			expectedErr: false,
+		},
+		{
+			name: "Good config with empty qualifier",
+			configs: []releasecontroller.ReleaseConfig{{
+				Name: "4.19.0-0.nightly",
+				Verify: map[string]releasecontroller.ReleaseVerification{
+					"osd-aws": {
+						Optional:   true,
+						MaxRetries: 2,
+						ProwJob: &releasecontroller.ProwJobVerification{
+							Name: "periodic-ci-openshift-release-master-nightly-4.19-osd-aws",
+						},
+						Qualifiers: releasequalifiers.ReleaseQualifiers{
+							"rosa": {},
+						},
+					},
+				},
+			},
+			},
+			expectedErr: false,
+		},


These tests are identical

Good catch! I was originally using pointers and just blindly refactored everything when I switched over.

AlexNPavel · 2025-11-06T23:01:29Z

pkg/releasequalifiers/merge_test.go

+			},
+		},
+		{
+			name: "nil base with notifications",


Suggested change

name: "nil base with notifications",

name: "empty base with notifications",

AlexNPavel · 2025-11-07T00:22:56Z

pkg/releasequalifiers/prettyprint.go

This file seems overly complicated to me. Golang's JSON marshal function already sorts keys for maps, so if we copy ReleaseQualifiers to a map[string]any, all that really needs to be sorted is the slices. Here's another method of pretty-print that passes the unit test. It does a json.Marshal->json.Unmarshal to create a full copy of the original data and then sorts Notifications.Jira.Escalations and Notifications.Slack.Escalations for each qualifier while copying to a generic map[string]any and then running json.MarshalIndent:

// PrettyPrint returns a pretty-printed JSON representation of ReleaseQualifiers // with alphabetically sorted keys for consistent output func (rqs ReleaseQualifiers) PrettyPrint() (string, error) { // use json marshaller to convert all structs to maps json1, err := json.Marshal(rqs) if err != nil { return "", err } qualiMap := make(ReleaseQualifiers) if err := json.Unmarshal(json1, &qualiMap); err != nil { return "", err } genericMap := make(map[string]any) for id, qualifier := range qualiMap { // unset labels qualifier.Labels = nil // sort escalation slices if qualifier.Notifications != nil { if qualifier.Notifications.Jira != nil { sort.Slice(qualifier.Notifications.Jira.Escalations, func(i, j int) bool { return qualifier.Notifications.Jira.Escalations[i].Name < qualifier.Notifications.Jira.Escalations[j].Name }) } if qualifier.Notifications.Slack != nil { sort.Slice(qualifier.Notifications.Slack.Escalations, func(i, j int) bool { return qualifier.Notifications.Slack.Escalations[i].Name < qualifier.Notifications.Slack.Escalations[j].Name }) } } genericMap[string(id)] = qualifier } // Marshal with pretty printing jsonData, err := json.MarshalIndent(genericMap, "", " ") if err != nil { return "", err } return string(jsonData), nil } }

Your function is faster as it doesn't do the extra json conversions, but IMO the above is easier to read/maintain.

The prettyprint stuff was all AI. I just wanted a nice way to read the objects as I was developing.

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

bradmwilliams · 2025-11-07T14:27:04Z

/label tide/merge-method-squash

openshift-ci · 2025-11-07T15:06:54Z

@bradmwilliams: 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/govulncheck	`1e4904b`	link	false	`/test govulncheck`
ci/prow/security	`1e4904b`	link	false	`/test security`

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

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 · 2025-11-07T18:50:06Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: AlexNPavel, bradmwilliams

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~~ [AlexNPavel,bradmwilliams]

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

bradmwilliams · 2025-11-07T20:19:55Z

/unhold

openshift-ci bot requested review from AlexNPavel and hoxhaeris November 4, 2025 19:45

openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Nov 4, 2025

openshift-ci bot requested a review from jupierce November 4, 2025 19:45

bradmwilliams force-pushed the qualifying-jobs-refactor branch from 1fd87c4 to 2a3c688 Compare November 4, 2025 20:47

openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Nov 5, 2025

bradmwilliams force-pushed the qualifying-jobs-refactor branch 3 times, most recently from 1854cea to 01de19f Compare November 6, 2025 17:47

Initial commit

7b6bebc

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

bradmwilliams force-pushed the qualifying-jobs-refactor branch from 01de19f to 7b6bebc Compare November 6, 2025 17:59

bradmwilliams commented Nov 6, 2025

View reviewed changes

AlexNPavel reviewed Nov 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

Code review updates

1e4904b

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

openshift-ci bot added the tide/merge-method-squash Denotes a PR that should be squashed by tide when it merges. label Nov 7, 2025

AlexNPavel approved these changes Nov 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

openshift-ci bot assigned AlexNPavel Nov 7, 2025

openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Nov 7, 2025

openshift-ci bot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Nov 7, 2025

openshift-merge-bot bot merged commit dc6c135 into openshift:main Nov 7, 2025
6 of 8 checks passed

bradmwilliams deleted the qualifying-jobs-refactor branch November 7, 2025 20:30

	name: "nil base with notifications",
	name: "empty base with notifications",

Release Qualifying Jobs Support (part 1) #711

Release Qualifying Jobs Support (part 1) #711

Uh oh!

Conversation

bradmwilliams commented Nov 4, 2025

Uh oh!

bradmwilliams commented Nov 4, 2025

Uh oh!

bradmwilliams commented Nov 5, 2025

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bradmwilliams commented Nov 7, 2025

Uh oh!

openshift-ci bot commented Nov 7, 2025

Uh oh!

openshift-ci bot commented Nov 7, 2025

Uh oh!

bradmwilliams commented Nov 7, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants