✨Progression Probes for CER by dtfranz · Pull Request #2550 · operator-framework/operator-controller

dtfranz · 2026-03-10T13:13:11Z

Description

Provides an API which allows custom probe definitions to determine readiness of objects in the CER phases. Objects can be selected for in one of two ways: by GroupKind, or by Label (matchLabels and matchExpressions). They can then be tested via any of the following:

Condition
- Checks that the object has a condition matching the type and status provided
FieldsEqual
- Uses two provided field paths and checks for equality.
FieldValue
- Uses a provided field path and checks that the value is equal to the provided expected value.

Also modifies the existing Namespace and PersistentVolumeClaim probes to use the new FieldValue probe.

Reviewer Checklist

API Go Documentation
Tests: Unit Tests (and E2E Tests, if appropriate)
Comprehensive Commit Messages
Links to related GitHub Issue(s)

netlify · 2026-03-10T13:13:18Z

✅ Deploy Preview for olmv1 ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	`79e203f`
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/olmv1/deploys/69b43545e18ee80008dc88e0
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-2550--olmv1.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

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

Copilot

Pull request overview

Adds support for user-defined spec.progressionProbes on ClusterExtensionRevision to gate phase progression based on custom assertions against rendered objects, with accompanying CRD/applyconfig updates and new e2e scenarios.

Changes:

Extend ClusterExtensionRevisionSpec with progressionProbes API types + deepcopy/applyconfig support.
Add CRD schema for progressionProbes to experimental manifests/Helm CRD.
Update the controller to build and attach user-defined progression probes to the boxcutter progress probe chain; add e2e scenarios for pass/fail behavior.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 13 out of 13 changed files in this pull request and generated 4 comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
test/e2e/features/revision.feature	Adds e2e scenarios covering progression probe pass/fail behavior (currently tagged `@WIP`).
manifests/experimental.yaml	Updates experimental CRD schema to include `spec.progressionProbes`.
manifests/experimental-e2e.yaml	Updates e2e experimental CRD schema to include `spec.progressionProbes`.
internal/operator-controller/controllers/clusterextensionrevision_controller.go	Builds user probes from `spec.progressionProbes` and adds them to the progress probe chain.
helm/olmv1/base/operator-controller/crd/experimental/olm.operatorframework.io_clusterextensionrevisions.yaml	Updates Helm CRD schema with `spec.progressionProbes`.
applyconfigurations/utils.go	Registers apply-configuration kinds for the new embedded types.
applyconfigurations/api/v1/progressionprobe.go	Generated apply-configuration for `ProgressionProbe`.
applyconfigurations/api/v1/probeselector.go	Generated apply-configuration for `ProbeSelector`.
applyconfigurations/api/v1/probeassertion.go	Generated apply-configuration for `ProbeAssertion`.
applyconfigurations/api/v1/fieldvalueprobe.go	Generated apply-configuration for `FieldValueProbe`.
applyconfigurations/api/v1/clusterextensionrevisionspec.go	Adds apply-configuration support for `spec.progressionProbes`.
api/v1/zz_generated.deepcopy.go	Adds deepcopy support for the new API structs/fields.
api/v1/clusterextensionrevision_types.go	Introduces the new API types and `spec.progressionProbes`.

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

internal/operator-controller/controllers/clusterextensionrevision_controller.go

api/v1/clusterextensionrevision_types.go

test/e2e/features/revision.feature

codecov · 2026-03-10T13:32:01Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 31.55340% with 141 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 67.80%. Comparing base (6f23a79) to head (79e203f).
⚠️ Report is 9 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
api/v1/zz_generated.deepcopy.go	25.39%	47 Missing ⚠️
applyconfigurations/api/v1/assertion.go	0.00%	14 Missing ⚠️
applyconfigurations/utils.go	0.00%	12 Missing ⚠️
applyconfigurations/api/v1/objectselector.go	0.00%	11 Missing ⚠️
applyconfigurations/api/v1/progressionprobe.go	0.00%	11 Missing ⚠️
internal/operator-controller/applier/phase.go	68.96%	5 Missing and 4 partials ⚠️
applyconfigurations/api/v1/conditionprobe.go	0.00%	8 Missing ⚠️
applyconfigurations/api/v1/fieldsequalprobe.go	0.00%	8 Missing ⚠️
applyconfigurations/api/v1/fieldvalueprobe.go	0.00%	8 Missing ⚠️
...controllers/clusterextensionrevision_controller.go	80.55%	6 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
... and 1 more

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2550      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   68.60%   67.80%   -0.81%     
==========================================
  Files         131      137       +6     
  Lines        9330     9526     +196     
==========================================
+ Hits         6401     6459      +58     
- Misses       2438     2572     +134     
- Partials      491      495       +4

Flag	Coverage Δ
e2e	`41.28% <0.00%> (-0.97%)`	⬇️
experimental-e2e	`51.09% <30.92%> (-0.49%)`	⬇️
unit	`52.89% <12.62%> (-0.92%)`	⬇️

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

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 18 out of 18 changed files in this pull request and generated 7 comments.

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

internal/operator-controller/applier/phase_test.go

test/e2e/features/revision.feature

manifests/experimental.yaml

manifests/experimental-e2e.yaml

...operator-controller/crd/experimental/olm.operatorframework.io_clusterextensionrevisions.yaml

Copilot

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.

api/v1/clusterextensionrevision_types.go

internal/operator-controller/controllers/clusterextensionrevision_controller.go

camilamacedo86

That seems great, but would be nice if we can:

a) Address as much as possible the issues reported by kube-lint-api
b) Address the Copilot comments as well. Seems that we have a few ones that are valid.

Could you please look on those?

api/v1/clusterextensionrevision_types.go

camilamacedo86 · 2026-03-11T10:00:38Z

docs/api-reference/olmv1-api-reference.md

+
+
+
+


Why do we have those spaces ?
Was this doc generated with the tooling used or API?

This is auto-generated, so I don't know why it's adding these spaces...

internal/operator-controller/controllers/clusterextensionrevision_controller.go

openshift-ci · 2026-03-12T05:47:43Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please ask for approval from camilamacedo86. 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:

OWNERS

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

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 19 out of 19 changed files in this pull request and generated 4 comments.

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

internal/operator-controller/controllers/clusterextensionrevision_controller.go

internal/operator-controller/applier/phase.go

Copilot

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.

internal/operator-controller/controllers/clusterextensionrevision_controller.go

internal/operator-controller/applier/phase.go

dtfranz · 2026-03-13T07:48:47Z

@JoelSpeed would you mind taking a look at these API changes? We'd really appreciate it!
In particular, we're curious what we should do, if anything, to resolve these api-lint errors.

api/v1/clusterextensionrevision_types.go

Copilot

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.

internal/operator-controller/controllers/clusterextensionrevision_controller.go

api/v1/clusterextensionrevision_types.go

@dfranz

Hi @dfranz that is amazing

Just one detail, should not all be marked with // opcon:experimental
Is not all experimental ? Beyond that LGTM

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 19 out of 19 changed files in this pull request and generated 4 comments.

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

internal/operator-controller/controllers/clusterextensionrevision_controller.go

applyconfigurations/api/v1/progressionprobe.go

applyconfigurations/api/v1/clusterextensionrevisionspec.go

pedjak · 2026-03-13T15:19:48Z

api/v1/clusterextensionrevision_types.go

+	// +optional
+	// +unionMember
+	// <opcon:experimental>
+	GroupKind metav1.GroupKind `json:"groupKind,omitempty,omitzero"`


I would use here our own type, not the one from k8s. this protect us from upstream changes that could change our api by upgrading dependencies.

We do the same with Conditions, TypeMeta, and ObjectMeta. Are any of these likely to get updated? And if they did get changed upstream, couldn't we just recreate the format and preserve the API when we bump the version?

With our own types, especially under .spec we have more control. But you can consider this as a nit.

pedjak · 2026-03-13T15:20:09Z

api/v1/clusterextensionrevision_types.go

+	// +optional
+	// +unionMember
+	// <opcon:experimental>
+	Label metav1.LabelSelector `json:"label,omitempty,omitzero"`


same as above.

It's pretty standard to leverage label selector in this way, I suspect we will be ok leverage the metav1 types in this spec

api/v1/clusterextensionrevision_types.go

pedjak · 2026-03-13T15:22:19Z

api/v1/clusterextensionrevision_types.go

+	// +listType=atomic
+	// +optional
+	// <opcon:experimental>
+	ProgressionProbes []ProgressionProbe `json:"progressionProbes,omitempty"`


Given that in the documentation above we speak about readiness probes, why do not we call this field and the corresponding type ReadinessProbes?

The probes can be considered readiness probes, but their main purpose is to halt or continue the progression of the phases being rolled out. Calling the entire thing ReadinessProbes to me sounds like we're only setting rules to set the whole revision as Ready.

Alright, but then we should carefully document it what it does and what are the implications on the rollout.

api/v1/clusterextensionrevision_types.go

pedjak · 2026-03-13T15:27:15Z

api/v1/clusterextensionrevision_types.go

+	// +kubebuilder:validation:Enum=Condition;FieldsEqual;FieldValue
+	// +required
+	// <opcon:experimental>
+	ProbeType ProbeType `json:"type,omitempty"`


can we call it just Type?

We have several union discriminators set across our API, they should all have unique names to distinguish which discriminator the type is being used for.

We have several union discriminators set across our API, they should all have unique names to distinguish which discriminator the type is being used for.

I am not sure if understand: we serialize this into JSON/Yaml as type, why we cannot refer it go code as Assertion.Type?

Ah I see what you mean; I thought you meant the type name, not the field name. Yes we can just name it that 👍

pedjak · 2026-03-13T15:27:56Z

api/v1/clusterextensionrevision_types.go

+	// +unionMember
+	// +optional
+	// <opcon:experimental>
+	Condition ConditionProbe `json:"condition,omitempty,omitzero"`


do we really need both omitempty and omitzero?

We agreed to add this in our sync yesterday; do you think it's unnecessary?

We agreed to add this in our sync yesterday; do you think it's unnecessary?

I thought just one them solves our problems?

pedjak · 2026-03-13T15:29:03Z

api/v1/clusterextensionrevision_types.go

+	// +unionMember
+	// +optional
+	// <opcon:experimental>
+	Condition ConditionProbe `json:"condition,omitempty,omitzero"`


Should we not call it ConditionEqual actually?

pedjak · 2026-03-13T15:30:31Z

api/v1/clusterextensionrevision_types.go

+	// +kubebuilder:validation:XValidation:rule="self.matches('^[a-zA-Z0-9]+(?:\\\\.[a-zA-Z0-9]+)*$')",message="must contain a valid field path. valid fields contain upper or lower-case alphanumeric characters separated by the \".\" character."
+	// +required
+	// <opcon:experimental>
+	FieldA string `json:"fieldA,omitempty,omitzero"`


could we call it firstField (or leftField) ?

I'm happy with fieldA==fieldB personally, do you feel strongly that it should be different?
I like that they get written symmetrically this way, but that's getting kind of nit-picky 🤷 i.e.
fieldA: foo
fieldB: bar

pedjak · 2026-03-13T15:32:04Z

api/v1/clusterextensionrevision_types.go

+	//
+	// +kubebuilder:validation:MinLength=1
+	// +kubebuilder:validation:MaxLength=200
+	// +kubebuilder:validation:XValidation:rule="self.matches('^[a-zA-Z0-9]+(?:\\\\.[a-zA-Z0-9]+)*$')",message="must contain a valid field path. valid fields contain upper or lower-case alphanumeric characters separated by the \".\" character."


do we support also locating fields in an array? do we support json paths?

The boxcutter probes are pretty primitive and don't support that at the moment, so I've excluded [] in the regex.

Provides an API which allows custom probe definitions to determine readiness of the CER phases. Objects can be selected for in one of two ways: by GroupKind, or by Label (matchLabels and matchExpressions). They can then be tested via any of: Condition, FieldsEqual, and FieldValue. Condition checks that the object has a condition matching the type and status provided. FieldsEqual uses two provided field paths and checks for equality. FieldValue uses a provided field path and checks that the value is equal to the provided expected value. Signed-off-by: Daniel Franz <dfranz@redhat.com>

camilamacedo86 · 2026-03-13T17:08:55Z

/override api-diff-lint
/override codecov/patch

openshift-ci · 2026-03-13T17:09:01Z

@camilamacedo86: /override requires failed status contexts, check run or a prowjob name to operate on.
The following unknown contexts/checkruns were given:

api-diff-lint

Only the following failed contexts/checkruns were expected:

Verify PR title
codecov/patch
crd-diff
e2e
experimental-e2e
extension-developer-e2e
go-apidiff
go-verdiff
goreleaser
lint
lint-api-diff
netlify/olmv1/deploy-preview
st2ex-e2e
tide
unit-test-basic
upgrade-st2st-e2e
verify

If you are trying to override a checkrun that has a space in it, you must put a double quote on the context.

Details

In response to this:

/override api-diff-lint
/override codecov/patch

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.

camilamacedo86 · 2026-03-13T17:10:51Z

/override api-diff-lint/api-diff-lint

openshift-ci · 2026-03-13T17:10:57Z

@camilamacedo86: /override requires failed status contexts, check run or a prowjob name to operate on.
The following unknown contexts/checkruns were given:

api-diff-lint/api-diff-lint

Only the following failed contexts/checkruns were expected:

Verify PR title
codecov/patch
crd-diff
e2e
experimental-e2e
extension-developer-e2e
go-apidiff
go-verdiff
goreleaser
lint
lint-api-diff
netlify/olmv1/deploy-preview
st2ex-e2e
tide
unit-test-basic
upgrade-st2st-e2e
verify

If you are trying to override a checkrun that has a space in it, you must put a double quote on the context.

Details

In response to this:

/override api-diff-lint/api-diff-lint

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.

camilamacedo86 · 2026-03-13T17:11:09Z

/override codecov/patch

openshift-ci · 2026-03-13T17:11:16Z

@camilamacedo86: Overrode contexts on behalf of camilamacedo86: codecov/patch

Details

In response to this:

/override codecov/patch

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.

camilamacedo86 · 2026-03-13T17:11:35Z

/override lint-api-diff

openshift-ci · 2026-03-13T17:11:41Z

@camilamacedo86: Overrode contexts on behalf of camilamacedo86: lint-api-diff

Details

In response to this:

/override lint-api-diff

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.

camilamacedo86 · 2026-03-13T17:13:03Z

Hi @dtfranz

We have the checks overrides.
I am ok with
/approved

But we need LGTM from @pedjak and @perdasilva in this one.

JoelSpeed · 2026-03-13T17:26:40Z

api/v1/clusterextensionrevision_types.go

+	// +kubebuilder:validation:MinProperties=1
+	// +kubebuilder:validation:MaxProperties=1


These don't appear to have made it to the generated CRD schema?

Good catcher +1

JoelSpeed · 2026-03-13T17:27:10Z

api/v1/clusterextensionrevision_types.go

+	// +optional
+	// +unionMember
+	// <opcon:experimental>
+	Label metav1.LabelSelector `json:"label,omitempty,omitzero"`


It's pretty standard to leverage label selector in this way, I suspect we will be ok leverage the metav1 types in this spec

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings March 10, 2026 13:13

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 10, 2026

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of dtfranz March 10, 2026 13:13 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Mar 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

dtfranz force-pushed the fieldvalue-user-probes branch from 3e0efb5 to c1ddbb3 Compare March 11, 2026 06:39

dtfranz marked this pull request as ready for review March 11, 2026 06:41

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings March 11, 2026 06:41

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 11, 2026

openshift-ci bot requested review from joelanford and trgeiger March 11, 2026 06:41

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of dtfranz March 11, 2026 06:41 View session

dtfranz force-pushed the fieldvalue-user-probes branch from c1ddbb3 to d1436fd Compare March 11, 2026 06:45

Copilot AI reviewed Mar 11, 2026

View reviewed changes

dtfranz force-pushed the fieldvalue-user-probes branch from d1436fd to f905c9e Compare March 11, 2026 08:15

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings March 11, 2026 08:52

dtfranz force-pushed the fieldvalue-user-probes branch from f905c9e to ca1b6be Compare March 11, 2026 08:52

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of dtfranz March 11, 2026 08:53 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Mar 11, 2026

View reviewed changes

api/v1/clusterextensionrevision_types.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

api/v1/clusterextensionrevision_types.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

internal/operator-controller/controllers/clusterextensionrevision_controller.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

camilamacedo86 previously requested changes Mar 11, 2026

View reviewed changes

openshift-ci bot assigned camilamacedo86 Mar 11, 2026

perdasilva reviewed Mar 11, 2026

View reviewed changes

internal/operator-controller/controllers/clusterextensionrevision_controller.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

dtfranz force-pushed the fieldvalue-user-probes branch from ca1b6be to a68ec4b Compare March 12, 2026 05:47

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings March 12, 2026 06:02

dtfranz force-pushed the fieldvalue-user-probes branch from a68ec4b to 100629d Compare March 12, 2026 06:02

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of dtfranz March 12, 2026 06:02 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Mar 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

dtfranz force-pushed the fieldvalue-user-probes branch from 100629d to b230589 Compare March 12, 2026 06:33

Copilot AI reviewed Mar 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

dtfranz force-pushed the fieldvalue-user-probes branch from d1cb7c5 to c66ea0f Compare March 12, 2026 12:07

perdasilva reviewed Mar 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

internal/operator-controller/applier/phase.go Show resolved Hide resolved

JoelSpeed reviewed Mar 13, 2026

View reviewed changes

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings March 13, 2026 13:10

dtfranz force-pushed the fieldvalue-user-probes branch from c66ea0f to 66b8345 Compare March 13, 2026 13:10

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of dtfranz March 13, 2026 13:10 View session

dtfranz force-pushed the fieldvalue-user-probes branch from 66b8345 to b7a4a28 Compare March 13, 2026 13:12

Copilot AI reviewed Mar 13, 2026

View reviewed changes

internal/operator-controller/controllers/clusterextensionrevision_controller.go Show resolved Hide resolved

api/v1/clusterextensionrevision_types.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

dtfranz force-pushed the fieldvalue-user-probes branch from b7a4a28 to e00edb6 Compare March 13, 2026 13:15

dtfranz requested a review from camilamacedo86 March 13, 2026 13:21

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings March 13, 2026 14:17

dtfranz force-pushed the fieldvalue-user-probes branch from e00edb6 to e30eea0 Compare March 13, 2026 14:17

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of dtfranz March 13, 2026 14:17 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Mar 13, 2026

View reviewed changes

pedjak reviewed Mar 13, 2026

View reviewed changes

dtfranz force-pushed the fieldvalue-user-probes branch from e30eea0 to 79e203f Compare March 13, 2026 16:03

JoelSpeed reviewed Mar 13, 2026

View reviewed changes

		// +kubebuilder:validation:MinProperties=1
		// +kubebuilder:validation:MaxProperties=1

Conversation

dtfranz commented Mar 10, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Description

Reviewer Checklist

Uh oh!

netlify bot commented Mar 10, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

✅ Deploy Preview for olmv1 ready!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Mar 10, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

camilamacedo86 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

openshift-ci bot commented Mar 12, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

dtfranz commented Mar 13, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dtfranz commented Mar 10, 2026 •

edited

Loading

netlify bot commented Mar 10, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Mar 10, 2026 •

edited

Loading