USHIFT-6127: microshift dns hosts plugin

[eslutsky]

No description provided.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@eslutsky: This pull request references USHIFT-6127 which is a valid jira issue.

Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the story to target the "4.21.0" version, but no target version was set.

In response to this:

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.

[tmalove]

/lgtm

[eslutsky]

/assign @alebedev87

[alebedev87]

I don't see any concern about the EP. The only thing I noticed is that we had a similar request from customers but it was rejected from the engineering. However I'm not sure the rejection reason was the hosts plugin itself and not the fact that the customer wanted to change /etc/hosts on the node (which is out of NI&D responsibility and discouraged). The RFE mentioned an upgrade though, I see the "Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy" section is empty. Did you consider the upgrade scenarios?

[eslutsky]

I don't see any concern about the EP. The only thing I noticed is that we had a similar request from customers but it was rejected from the engineering. However I'm not sure the rejection reason was the hosts plugin itself and not the fact that the customer wanted to change /etc/hosts on the node (which is out of NI&D responsibility and discouraged). The RFE mentioned an upgrade though, I see the "Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy" section is empty. Did you consider the upgrade scenarios?

yes:
When upgrading from 4.20 or earlier to 4.21, the new configuration fields will remain
unset, causing the existing defaults to be used. (so the /etc/hosts wont be passed to coredns)

[DanielFroehlich]

I don't see any concern about the EP. The only thing I noticed is that we had a similar request from customers but it was rejected from the engineering.
That makes sense on OpenShift, where OpenShift "owns" the operating system and manual / direct interaction is strongly discouraged.
However, this EP is about MicroShift. MicroShift is "just an application" on top of the RHEL. RHEL is owned and managed by the users. Hence, we are perfectly fine with them administrating e.g. "/etc/hosts".

[alebedev87]

That makes sense on OpenShift, where OpenShift "owns" the operating system and manual / direct interaction is strongly discouraged.
However, this EP is about MicroShift. MicroShift is "just an application" on top of the RHEL. RHEL is owned and managed by the users. Hence, we are perfectly fine with them administrating e.g. "/etc/hosts".

Right. I brought the RFE only for awareness, the Microshift use case is different.

[pacevedom]

/lgtm

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: pacevedom

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 [pacevedom]

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

[openshift-ci]

@eslutsky: all tests passed!

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.