feat: Support OpenShift-specific topologies #2622
Conversation
The `kubernetes-resource` rule group upstream, based on customer requirements, partially supports HA and non-HA (SNO/TNX) topologies at the moment, and we may want to dis/allow certain groups based on topologies in the future as they evolve. Signed-off-by: Pranshu Srivastava <[email protected]>
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
|
Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request. |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: rexagod 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:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
approved
|
@rexagod: The following test failed, say
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. |
1 participant
The
kubernetes-resourcerule group upstream, based on customer requirements, partially supports HA and non-HA (SNO/TNX) topologies at the moment, and we may want to dis/allow certain groups based on topologies in the future as they evolve.This is most likely for demonstration purposes for now and not needed for OCPBUGS-34568 since we support the requested alerts in non-HA scenario (and hence SNO/TNX) upstream: kubernetes-monitoring/kubernetes-mixin#1010.