Skip to content

Bump rancher/pkg/apis, cluster-api, and otel pins#560

Open
dasarinaidu wants to merge 1 commit into
rancher:mainfrom
dasarinaidu:pkg-apis-bump
Open

Bump rancher/pkg/apis, cluster-api, and otel pins#560
dasarinaidu wants to merge 1 commit into
rancher:mainfrom
dasarinaidu:pkg-apis-bump

Conversation

@dasarinaidu

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Bump rancher/pkg/apis, cluster-api, and otel pins

  • github.com/rancher/rancher/pkg/apis to latest pseudo-version
    (exposes new fields like OIDCClientSpec.Scopes)
  • sigs.k8s.io/cluster-api replace v1.8.3 -> v1.12.2
    (api/v1beta1 moved to api/core/v1beta1)
  • go.opentelemetry.io/otel pins v1.28.0 -> v1.38.0
    (transitively required by the newer pkg/apis dep tree)
  • Update import path in actions/provisioning/verify.go
  • Apply across root, actions, and interoperability submodules

with:
# Patch version isn't needed; https://github.com/golangci/golangci-lint-action?tab=readme-ov-file#internals
version: v1.64.6
version: v2.5.0

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is this change intentional and why is it updated?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, intentional. The pkg/apis bump pulls in transitive deps (aks-operator, eks-operator, gke-operator, fleet, lasso, norman) that all require Go 1.25. The previously pinned golangci-lint v1.64.6 was built with Go 1.24 and can't parse Go 1.25 modules
CI was failing with the Go language version (go1.24) used to build golangci-lint is lower than the targeted Go version (1.25.0). v1.x has no Go 1.25 release (the project moved to v2 series). v2.5.0 is built with Go 1.25.1.

@caliskanugur caliskanugur Apr 30, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We want parity between shepherd and rancher/rancher, this PR already covers that parity, could you take a look at it? #536

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for flagging #536

A few things to consider:
#560 is a focused 5-file bump intentionally kept small to unblock the OIDC PR (#547), which Priya's already reviewed and approved pending the typed-wrangler rewrite that depends on v3.OIDCClientSpec.Scopes. #536 is a larger 408-file change (RKE1 removal) that's been in cross-team review for breaking changes since March, currently using a fork pin for pkg/apis (bhartigautam156/rancher/pkg/apis).

Would it make sense to land #560 as the focused dep bump (no behavior changes outside the bump itself) so OIDC can move forward, then handle the RKE1 removal on its own timeline in #536?

Comment thread go.mod Outdated
k8s.io/api v0.35.4
k8s.io/apimachinery v0.35.4
k8s.io/apiserver v0.35.4
k8s.io/cli-runtime v0.34.1

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I see some k8s versions are updated to 0.35.4, while others are still at 0.34.1. Could you ensure they are all updated?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Good catch — fixed. All k8s.io/* replace directives now aligned at v0.35.4 to match the transitive bump pulled in by the new pkg/apis. (Was a mix of v0.34.1 and v0.35.4 because the replace block hadn't been updated.

Comment thread .github/workflows/verify-changes.yaml Outdated

- name: Golangci Lint
uses: golangci/golangci-lint-action@55c2c1448f86e01eaae002a5a3a9624417608d84 # v6.5.2
uses: golangci/golangci-lint-action@v8

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is this change intentional and why is it updated? If this was intentional, you need to pin the version to a full-length commit ID instead of a tag.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, intentional and tied to comment #1: action v6.5.2 was pinned for golangci-lint v1.x; v2.x lint needs action v7+. Pinned to commit SHA per shepherd convention: golangci-lint-action@4afd733a84b1f43292c63897423277bb7f4313a9 # v8.

Comment thread go.mod Outdated
github.com/rancher/gke-operator v1.14.0-rc.3
github.com/rancher/lasso v0.2.7
github.com/rancher/norman v0.9.1
github.com/rancher/rancher/pkg/apis v0.0.0-20260429165553-4ae6ee5ee410

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The latest version appears to be v0.0.0-20260428160942-f131ed782a24

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Bumped to v0.0.0-20260430130736-3f1ff49a72cb — that's today's latest from the Go proxy

@caliskanugur caliskanugur left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Some maybe most of these changes are covered in #536

If this PR is not an immediate blocker, could you please give that PR a review for the same bits that this one is changing

with:
# Patch version isn't needed; https://github.com/golangci/golangci-lint-action?tab=readme-ov-file#internals
version: v1.64.6
version: v2.5.0

@caliskanugur caliskanugur Apr 30, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We want parity between shepherd and rancher/rancher, this PR already covers that parity, could you take a look at it? #536

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants