Skip to content

Conversation

@crenshaw-dev
Copy link
Member

Right now we only catch Ready=False if the reason is ReconciliationError. But GitOps Promoter now produces other reasons. So right now we miss the failure condition and instead fall into logic about missing data in the status.environments block.

The change handles Ready=False regardless of reason. It injects the reason name in the message if it's not just ReconciliationError.

@crenshaw-dev crenshaw-dev requested a review from a team as a code owner October 15, 2025 16:57
@bunnyshell
Copy link

bunnyshell bot commented Oct 15, 2025

❌ Preview Environment deleted from Bunnyshell

Available commands (reply to this comment):

  • 🚀 /bns:deploy to deploy the environment

@crenshaw-dev crenshaw-dev marked this pull request as draft October 15, 2025 17:52
Signed-off-by: Michael Crenshaw <[email protected]>
@crenshaw-dev crenshaw-dev changed the title fix(health): use PromotionStrategy Ready regardless of reason fix(health): use promotion resource Ready condition regardless of reason Oct 15, 2025
@crenshaw-dev crenshaw-dev marked this pull request as ready for review October 15, 2025 18:08
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 15, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
⚠️ Please upload report for BASE (master@9198b79). Learn more about missing BASE report.
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##             master   #24971   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage          ?   60.84%           
=========================================
  Files             ?      351           
  Lines             ?    60489           
  Branches          ?        0           
=========================================
  Hits              ?    36807           
  Misses            ?    20753           
  Partials          ?     2929           

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

Copy link
Collaborator

@leoluz leoluz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@leoluz leoluz merged commit 28ec26a into argoproj:master Oct 15, 2025
29 checks passed
@crenshaw-dev crenshaw-dev added component:cache Issue related to Kubernetes caching, corruption, or cache improvements cherry-pick/3.0 Candidate for cherry picking into the 3.0 release branch cherry-pick/3.1 Candidate for cherry picking into the 3.1 release branch cherry-pick/3.2 Candidate for cherry picking into the 3.2 release branch and removed component:cache Issue related to Kubernetes caching, corruption, or cache improvements labels Oct 16, 2025
argo-cd-cherry-pick-bot bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 16, 2025
@argo-cd-cherry-pick-bot
Copy link

❌ Cherry-pick failed for 3.0. Please check the workflow logs for details.

@argo-cd-cherry-pick-bot
Copy link

❌ Cherry-pick failed for 3.1. Please check the workflow logs for details.

@argo-cd-cherry-pick-bot
Copy link

🍒 Cherry-pick PR created for 3.2: #24973

crenshaw-dev added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 16, 2025
…son (cherry-pick #24971 for 3.2) (#24973)

Signed-off-by: Michael Crenshaw <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Michael Crenshaw <[email protected]>
dzahariev pushed a commit to dzahariev/argo-cd that referenced this pull request Oct 20, 2025
devopsjedi pushed a commit to devopsjedi/argo-cd that referenced this pull request Oct 21, 2025
AvhiMaz pushed a commit to AvhiMaz/argo-cd that referenced this pull request Nov 3, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

cherry-pick/3.0 Candidate for cherry picking into the 3.0 release branch cherry-pick/3.1 Candidate for cherry picking into the 3.1 release branch cherry-pick/3.2 Candidate for cherry picking into the 3.2 release branch

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants