Skip to content

OCPBUGS-55260#Add static provisioning content for Azure File #94557

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

lpettyjo
Copy link
Contributor

@lpettyjo lpettyjo commented Jun 10, 2025

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. label Jun 10, 2025
@lpettyjo lpettyjo added this to the Continuous Release milestone Jun 10, 2025
@ocpdocs-previewbot
Copy link

ocpdocs-previewbot commented Jun 10, 2025

Copy link
Contributor

@GroceryBoyJr GroceryBoyJr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, only a couple tiny nits.

@GroceryBoyJr
Copy link
Contributor

/label peer-review-done
/remove-label peer-review-in-progress
/unassign GroceryBoyJr

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the peer-review-done Signifies that the peer review team has reviewed this PR label Jun 10, 2025
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Jun 10, 2025

@GroceryBoyJr: Those labels are not set on the issue: peer-review-in-progress

In response to this:

/label peer-review-done
/remove-label peer-review-in-progress
/unassign GroceryBoyJr

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.

@GroceryBoyJr
Copy link
Contributor

/remove-label peer-review-needed

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot removed the peer-review-needed Signifies that the peer review team needs to review this PR label Jun 10, 2025
@bergerhoffer
Copy link
Contributor

The branch/enterprise-4.20 label has been added to this PR.

This is because your PR targets the main branch and is labeled for enterprise-4.19. And any PR going into main must also target the latest version branch (enterprise-4.20).

If the update in your PR does NOT apply to version 4.20 onward, please re-target this PR to go directly into the appropriate version branch or branches (enterprise-4.x) instead of main.

Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Jun 27, 2025

@lpettyjo: 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.

@duanwei33
Copy link

The format for the new added secret part doesn't look good, not sure if it is okay in official doc.
Others LGTM.

@jsafrane
Copy link
Contributor

The factual content of the secret doc LGTM. I let others judge the format.

<2> Namespace for the PVC.
<3> The name of the PV that you created in the previous step.
<4> Storage class name. This name is used by the PVC to bind to this specific PV. For static provisioning, a `StorageClass` object does not need to exist, but the name in the PV and PVC must match.
<5> Access mode. Sets read and/or write access for the PVC.
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Same here

<11> File share name. Use only the file share name; do not use full path.
<12> This secret must contain the Azure Storage Account name and key.
+
The secret must have a very specific format with two key-value pairs:
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think we should move this at the top of the procedure and just do a reference here

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants