Skip to content

✨ Add support for parsing and persisting explicit pkg.Release field#2543

Merged
openshift-merge-bot[bot] merged 1 commit into
operator-framework:mainfrom
rashmigottipati:oprun-4277-implementation
Apr 28, 2026
Merged

✨ Add support for parsing and persisting explicit pkg.Release field#2543
openshift-merge-bot[bot] merged 1 commit into
operator-framework:mainfrom
rashmigottipati:oprun-4277-implementation

Conversation

@rashmigottipati
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@rashmigottipati rashmigottipati commented Mar 6, 2026

Description

Summary

Adds support for parsing the explicit pkg.Release field from bundle metadata and persisting it through cluster storage (roundtripping). This PR is gated behind the BundleReleaseSupport feature gate, which is disabled by default. The feature gate is explicitly enabled in experimental manifests to facilitate testing of experimental features.

Changes

  • Added BundleReleaseSupport alpha feature gate (disabled by default)
  • Added Release field to BundleMetadata CRD type
  • Added BundleReleaseKey label constant for annotation storage
  • Updated bundleutil.parseVersionRelease() to: Parse explicit pkg.Release when feature gate enabled and field present. Fall back to legacy registry+v1 behavior (release in build metadata) otherwise
  • Updated bundleutil.MetadataFor() to serialize release value from VersionRelease
  • Added roundtripping support: store release in CRD field and annotations, read it back in filters and controllers

Feature Gate Behavior

When enabled:

  • Bundles with explicit pkg.Release field: release parsed separately, build metadata preserved for proper semver purpose
  • Bundles without explicit release: falls back to registry+v1 parsing (release from build metadata)

When feature gate disabled:

  • All bundles use registry+v1 parsing (release from build metadata)
  • Explicit pkg.Release field ignored

Reviewer Checklist

  • API Go Documentation
  • Tests: Unit Tests
  • Comprehensive Commit Messages
  • Links to related GitHub Issue(s)

Link to Github Issue: #2495
Epic: #2479

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings March 6, 2026 16:37
@openshift-ci openshift-ci Bot requested review from joelanford and perdasilva March 6, 2026 16:37
@netlify
Copy link
Copy Markdown

netlify Bot commented Mar 6, 2026

Deploy Preview for olmv1 ready!

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit 6aee4b9
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/projects/olmv1/deploys/69f1109d3c5e030008b61d89
😎 Deploy Preview https://deploy-preview-2543--olmv1.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile
Toggle QR Code...

QR Code

Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

This PR introduces an alpha feature gate to allow OLMv1 upgrade resolution to treat “re-released” bundles (same semver, higher release/build value like 2.0.0+1 -> 2.0.0+2) as valid successors when explicitly enabled.

Changes:

  • Added ReleaseVersionPriority feature gate (Alpha, default disabled).
  • Added SameVersionHigherRelease() predicate and integrated it into SuccessorsOf() behind the feature gate.
  • Added unit tests for SameVersionHigherRelease() and for SuccessorsOf() with the gate disabled.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 5 out of 5 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

Show a summary per file
File Description
internal/operator-controller/features/features.go Defines the new ReleaseVersionPriority feature gate and its spec.
internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/successors.go Conditionally expands successor matching to include same-version/higher-release bundles when gated on.
internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/bundle_predicates.go Adds the SameVersionHigherRelease() predicate.
internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/bundle_predicates_test.go Adds predicate unit tests including edge cases.
internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/successors_test.go Adds a regression test to ensure default (gate-off) behavior does not accept higher-release bundles.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Comment thread internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/successors.go Outdated
Comment thread internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/successors_test.go Outdated
@codecov
Copy link
Copy Markdown

codecov Bot commented Mar 6, 2026

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 72.04301% with 26 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 68.03%. Comparing base (dd2e1f6) to head (6aee4b9).
⚠️ Report is 28 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
...ernal/operator-controller/bundle/versionrelease.go 0.00% 7 Missing ⚠️
api/v1/zz_generated.deepcopy.go 33.33% 3 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
internal/operator-controller/applier/boxcutter.go 33.33% 2 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
...ontroller/controllers/boxcutter_reconcile_steps.go 0.00% 2 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
applyconfigurations/api/v1/bundlemetadata.go 0.00% 3 Missing ⚠️
internal/operator-controller/bundleutil/bundle.go 95.00% 1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...er/controllers/clusterextension_reconcile_steps.go 33.33% 1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2543      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   68.92%   68.03%   -0.89%     
==========================================
  Files         141      144       +3     
  Lines       10005    10672     +667     
==========================================
+ Hits         6896     7261     +365     
- Misses       2594     2883     +289     
- Partials      515      528      +13     
Flag Coverage Δ
e2e 37.21% <18.27%> (+0.05%) ⬆️
experimental-e2e 52.45% <22.58%> (-0.06%) ⬇️
unit 53.67% <69.89%> (+0.01%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings March 6, 2026 17:34
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 5 out of 5 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.


💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Comment thread internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/successors_test.go Outdated
@joelanford
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

If I understand this correctly, it looks like this introduces the new behavior that an explicit upgrade edge doesn't actually have to exist in the catalog to upgrade to a bundle that has the same version and a higher release. Is that the intent? (If so let's make that clear in the PR description).

Is it also the intent that we'll inherit the upgrade edges of the first release of the version?

Comment thread internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/bundle_predicates_test.go Outdated
Comment thread internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/successors.go Outdated
Comment thread internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/bundle_predicates.go Outdated
@grokspawn
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

grokspawn commented Mar 9, 2026

We discussed earlier today. I think the first step is to essentially revert #2273 so that we're not attempting to interpret build metadata as release info anymore. Any catalogs built with tooling that supports release versioning will automagically propagate the build metadata into the CSV's spec.release field anyway, so regardless of whether the operator author used the old build metadata approach or the new spec.release approach, they would still have spec.release here.

The next step is to ensure that we're sorting successors using the CompositeVersion, which is easily performed if using the Bundle comparator during the sort.

This will prefer version+release over version.

#2273 makes the claim that future bundle types will drop this approach, not that registry+v1 bundles should. So that's my bad.
From the perspective of fulfilling handling precedents for registry+v1 bundles, we need to retain the ability to differentiate/order them by build metadata. :(

@grokspawn
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

If I understand this correctly, it looks like this introduces the new behavior that an explicit upgrade edge doesn't actually have to exist in the catalog to upgrade to a bundle that has the same version and a higher release. Is that the intent? (If so let's make that clear in the PR description).

Is it also the intent that we'll inherit the upgrade edges of the first release of the version?

Sadly, we have to rely on the presence of existing graph edges or we break assumptions users have with the registry+v1 bundle format, coming from v0.

So even though we have the ability to prefer version+release over version, since replaces/skips use named bundles instead of bundle versions we have to support the older behavior.

@joelanford
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I think the first step is to essentially revert #2273 so that we're not attempting to interpret build metadata as release info anymore.

That would be a regression of a bug fix that #2273 made though, right?

Sadly, we have to rely on the presence of existing graph edges or we break assumptions users have with the registry+v1 bundle format, coming from v0.

So even though we have the ability to prefer version+release over version, since replaces/skips use named bundles instead of bundle versions we have to support the older behavior.

Yeah, agreed. I reached the same conclusion after thinking about this more.

So if I understand correctly now:

  1. The existing code on main already honors the upgrade graph and orders "same version, different release" correctly when parsing from build metadata
  2. The existing code on main knows nothing about the new release field.

So the change we need now is "look for release in the olm.package property, and if present, prefer it over build metadata"?

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings March 12, 2026 19:55
@rashmigottipati rashmigottipati force-pushed the oprun-4277-implementation branch from 5681488 to 8dcab49 Compare March 12, 2026 20:00
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 5 out of 5 changed files in this pull request and generated 4 comments.


💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Comment thread internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/successors.go Outdated
Comment thread internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/bundle_predicates_test.go Outdated
Comment thread internal/operator-controller/resolve/resolver.go
Comment thread internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/successors.go Outdated
@grokspawn
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Adjusted my comments. I missed the part of the #2273 description when it said that we wouldn't divert from semver ordering for any new bundle formats.
From the perspective of registry+v1 bundles, this is precedent and we should support the new case with .spec.release is available, otherwise falling back on the 'is it bundle metadata' ordering logic.

@rashmigottipati rashmigottipati force-pushed the oprun-4277-implementation branch from a2e5062 to 1e9cded Compare April 2, 2026 20:52
Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings April 2, 2026 20:52
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 7 out of 7 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 comments.


💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Comment thread internal/operator-controller/features/features.go
Comment thread internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/successors_test.go Outdated
Comment thread internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/compare/compare_test.go Outdated
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 19 out of 19 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 comments.


💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Comment thread internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/successors.go Outdated
Comment thread internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/successors.go
Comment thread internal/operator-controller/controllers/clusterextension_reconcile_steps.go Outdated
@rashmigottipati rashmigottipati force-pushed the oprun-4277-implementation branch from 3af1ee4 to 8644489 Compare April 14, 2026 18:45
Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings April 14, 2026 19:32
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 19 out of 19 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.


💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Comment thread internal/operator-controller/labels/labels.go Outdated
Comment thread api/v1/clusterextension_types.go
Comment thread internal/operator-controller/bundleutil/bundle.go
Comment thread internal/operator-controller/bundleutil/bundle.go
Comment thread internal/operator-controller/bundleutil/bundle.go
Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings April 21, 2026 20:43
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 19 out of 19 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.


💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 19 out of 19 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.


💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Comment thread internal/operator-controller/labels/labels.go Outdated
@rashmigottipati rashmigottipati force-pushed the oprun-4277-implementation branch 2 times, most recently from caab602 to fd1dee7 Compare April 28, 2026 17:25
Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings April 28, 2026 17:44
@rashmigottipati rashmigottipati force-pushed the oprun-4277-implementation branch from fd1dee7 to 8f24e45 Compare April 28, 2026 17:44
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 20 out of 20 changed files in this pull request and generated 4 comments.

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)

internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/successors_test.go:1

  • This test file now uses require.* (e.g., require.Error, require.Contains) but does not import github.com/stretchr/testify/require, which will fail compilation. Add the missing import to match the new assertions.
package filter

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Comment thread internal/operator-controller/applier/boxcutter.go Outdated
Comment thread internal/operator-controller/applier/boxcutter.go Outdated
Comment thread internal/operator-controller/bundleutil/bundle.go
Comment thread manifests/experimental.yaml
Signed-off-by: Rashmi Gottipati <rgottipa@redhat.com>
@openshift-ci
Copy link
Copy Markdown

openshift-ci Bot commented Apr 28, 2026

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: grokspawn

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:

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

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants