NO-JIRA: Expand CAPI to Cluster API and MAPI to Machine API by RadekManak · Pull Request #272 · openshift/cluster-capi-operator

RadekManak · 2025-03-14T19:49:32Z

Expand CAPI to Cluster API and MAPI to Machine api in user facing strings.

This should cover all occurrences, as I have generated this using sed a manually filtered test strings that don't have to follow this convention.

openshift-ci · 2025-03-14T19:49:36Z

Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request.
If you want CI signal for your change, please convert it to an actual PR.
You can still manually trigger a test run with /test all

openshift-ci-robot · 2025-03-14T19:52:02Z

@RadekManak: This pull request explicitly references no jira issue.

Details

In response to this:

Expand CAPI to Cluster API and MAPI to Machine api in user facing strings.

This should cover all occurrences, as I have generated this using sed a manually filtered test strings that don't have to follow this convention.

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.

jeana-redhat

The expansion LGTM. There are other docs convention things that I would suggest changing, but I am guessing you'd prefer to keep commits sort of targeted to one topic.

I guess I can collect other things I notice and maybe open a PR myself later suggestions? In any case, this gives me a very good idea at what attempting something like that would look like.

JoelSpeed · 2025-03-17T09:09:16Z

/approve
/assign @damdo

openshift-ci · 2025-03-17T09:09:29Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: jeana-redhat, JoelSpeed

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

The pull request process is described here

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

~~OWNERS~~ [JoelSpeed]

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

RadekManak · 2025-03-17T09:56:22Z

/retest

theobarberbany · 2025-03-17T10:00:13Z

/lgtm

damdo · 2025-03-17T10:10:23Z

/hold

damdo

A couple of places should not be changed.
The rest looks good.

/unlgtm

damdo · 2025-03-17T10:11:58Z

 				SatisfyAll(
 					ContainElement(And(HaveField("Type", Equal(configv1.OperatorAvailable)), HaveField("Status", Equal(configv1.ConditionTrue)),
-						HaveField("Message", Equal(fmt.Sprintf("Cluster CAPI Operator is available at %s", desiredOperatorReleaseVersion))))),
+						HaveField("Message", Equal(fmt.Sprintf("Cluster Cluster API Operator is available at %s", desiredOperatorReleaseVersion))))),


This should stay as is.

damdo · 2025-03-17T10:12:40Z

 	conds := []configv1.ClusterOperatorStatusCondition{
 		operatorstatus.NewClusterOperatorStatusCondition(capiInstallerControllerAvailableCondition, configv1.ConditionTrue, operatorstatus.ReasonAsExpected,
-			"CAPI Installer Controller works as expected"),
+			"Cluster API Installer Controller works as expected"),


All these CAPI Installer Controller should stay as is, as that's the actual controller name.

damdo · 2025-03-17T10:15:12Z


 	if availableConditionMsg == "" {
-		availableConditionMsg = fmt.Sprintf("Cluster CAPI Operator is available at %s", r.ReleaseVersion)
+		availableConditionMsg = fmt.Sprintf("Cluster Cluster API Operator is available at %s", r.ReleaseVersion)


This should not change

openshift-ci · 2025-03-17T10:37:52Z

New changes are detected. LGTM label has been removed.

RadekManak · 2025-03-17T11:25:03Z

/test unit

openshift-merge-robot · 2025-03-28T22:45:32Z

PR needs rebase.

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.

JoelSpeed · 2025-10-06T16:53:33Z

@RadekManak Could you please get this rebased? I think we should prio getting this through

openshift-bot · 2026-01-05T01:01:08Z

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.

Mark the issue as fresh by commenting /remove-lifecycle stale.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.
Exclude this issue from closing by commenting /lifecycle frozen.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

/lifecycle stale

coderabbitai · 2026-01-05T01:01:22Z

Important

Review skipped

Auto reviews are limited based on label configuration.

🚫 Review skipped — only excluded labels are configured. (1)

do-not-merge/work-in-progress

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.

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

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

RadekManak · 2026-01-22T14:18:56Z

/lifecycle frozen

openshift-ci · 2026-01-22T14:18:59Z

@RadekManak: The lifecycle/frozen label cannot be applied to Pull Requests.

Details

In response to this:

/lifecycle frozen

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.

RadekManak · 2026-01-22T14:19:37Z

/remove-lifecycle stale

openshift-bot · 2026-04-24T01:00:16Z

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.

Mark the issue as fresh by commenting /remove-lifecycle stale.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.
Exclude this issue from closing by commenting /lifecycle frozen.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

/lifecycle stale

nrb · 2026-04-24T18:33:12Z

/remove-lifecycle stale
/lifecycle frozen

openshift-ci · 2026-04-24T18:33:16Z

@nrb: The lifecycle/frozen label cannot be applied to Pull Requests.

Details

In response to this:

/remove-lifecycle stale
/lifecycle frozen

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.

openshift-ci · 2026-05-14T13:21:59Z

@RadekManak: 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-capi-techpreview	`9624ac5`	link	true	`/test e2e-gcp-capi-techpreview`
ci/prow/e2e-gcp-ovn-techpreview	`9624ac5`	link	true	`/test e2e-gcp-ovn-techpreview`
ci/prow/okd-scos-e2e-aws-ovn	`9624ac5`	link	false	`/test okd-scos-e2e-aws-ovn`
ci/prow/regression-clusterinfra-cucushift-rehearse-capi-aws-ipi	`9624ac5`	link	false	`/test regression-clusterinfra-cucushift-rehearse-capi-aws-ipi`
ci/prow/e2e-openstack-ovn-techpreview	`9624ac5`	link	true	`/test e2e-openstack-ovn-techpreview`
ci/prow/e2e-aws-ovn-techpreview-upgrade	`9624ac5`	link	true	`/test e2e-aws-ovn-techpreview-upgrade`
ci/prow/e2e-azure-ovn-techpreview-upgrade	`9624ac5`	link	true	`/test e2e-azure-ovn-techpreview-upgrade`
ci/prow/e2e-aws-capi-techpreview-post-install	`9624ac5`	link	true	`/test e2e-aws-capi-techpreview-post-install`

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 added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Mar 14, 2025

RadekManak marked this pull request as ready for review March 14, 2025 19:49

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 14, 2025

openshift-ci Bot requested review from JoelSpeed and nrb March 14, 2025 19:50

RadekManak changed the title ~~Expand CAPI to Cluster API and MAPI to Machine api~~ Expand CAPI to Cluster API and MAPI to Machine API Mar 14, 2025

RadekManak changed the title ~~Expand CAPI to Cluster API and MAPI to Machine API~~ NO-JIRA: Expand CAPI to Cluster API and MAPI to Machine API Mar 14, 2025

openshift-ci-robot added the jira/valid-reference Indicates that this PR references a valid Jira ticket of any type. label Mar 14, 2025

jeana-redhat approved these changes Mar 14, 2025

View reviewed changes

openshift-ci Bot assigned damdo Mar 17, 2025

openshift-ci Bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Mar 17, 2025

openshift-ci Bot assigned theobarberbany Mar 17, 2025

openshift-ci Bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Mar 17, 2025

openshift-ci Bot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Mar 17, 2025

damdo requested changes Mar 17, 2025

View reviewed changes

Expand CAPI to Cluster API and MAPI to Machine api in user strings

9624ac5

RadekManak force-pushed the capitoclusterapi branch from 96ba6d7 to 9624ac5 Compare March 17, 2025 10:37

openshift-ci Bot removed the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Mar 17, 2025

openshift-merge-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Mar 28, 2025

damdo mentioned this pull request Sep 25, 2025

OCPCLOUD-2995: Machine status conversion and syncing #365

Merged

openshift-ci Bot added the lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. label Jan 5, 2026

openshift-ci Bot removed the lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. label Jan 22, 2026

openshift-ci Bot added the lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. label Apr 24, 2026

openshift-ci Bot removed the lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. label Apr 24, 2026

Conversation

RadekManak commented Mar 14, 2025

Uh oh!

openshift-ci Bot commented Mar 14, 2025

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Mar 14, 2025

Uh oh!

jeana-redhat left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

JoelSpeed commented Mar 17, 2025

Uh oh!

openshift-ci Bot commented Mar 17, 2025

Uh oh!

RadekManak commented Mar 17, 2025

Uh oh!

theobarberbany commented Mar 17, 2025

Uh oh!

damdo commented Mar 17, 2025

Uh oh!

damdo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

damdo Mar 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

damdo Mar 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

damdo Mar 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

openshift-ci Bot commented Mar 17, 2025

Uh oh!

RadekManak commented Mar 17, 2025

Uh oh!

openshift-merge-robot commented Mar 28, 2025

Uh oh!

JoelSpeed commented Oct 6, 2025

Uh oh!

openshift-bot commented Jan 5, 2026

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot commented Jan 5, 2026

Review skipped

Uh oh!

RadekManak commented Jan 22, 2026

Uh oh!

openshift-ci Bot commented Jan 22, 2026

Uh oh!

RadekManak commented Jan 22, 2026

Uh oh!

openshift-bot commented Apr 24, 2026

Uh oh!

nrb commented Apr 24, 2026

Uh oh!

openshift-ci Bot commented Apr 24, 2026

Uh oh!

openshift-ci Bot commented May 14, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

9 participants