Remove PreprovisioningNetworkDataName

[rabi]

We had initially introduced preprovisioningNetworkDataName field in InstanceSpec for users to have flexibility of setting it in OpenStackDataPlaneNodeSet CR for the individual nodes. We have had the implementation to fallback to using preprovisioningNetworkDataName for provisioning networkData if the later is not provided and the former is set.

However, we've noticed that this does not work when using coreos IPA ramdisk image as ProvisioningImage Builder expects the preprovisioningNetworkDataName to be in nmstate format, however for us during provisioning cloud-init expects it to be in openstack network_data.json format.

Therefore we would not replicate the metal3 behavior of falling back to preprovisioningNetworkDataName if networkData is not provided. We instead will keep both network data for preprovisionig and provisoning separate. If networkData is not provided per BMH node, we would use the default networkData we generate using IPAM.

This also removes networkData/userData from the BaremetalSet spec as there is no way user can provide this data for a set of BMHs.

Depends-On: openstack-k8s-operators/openstack-operator#1116
jira: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OSPRH-10442

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: rabi

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 [rabi]

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

[rabi]

Putting this on hold to see if we want to update #211 instead.

[softwarefactory-project-zuul]

Build failed (check pipeline). Post recheck (without leading slash)
to rerun all jobs. Make sure the failure cause has been resolved before
you rerun jobs.

https://softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/t/rdoproject.org/buildset/0fbe64a3a8f544d5bbcc47bc775c0d87

❌ openstack-baremetal-operator-content-provider FAILURE in 13m 51s
⚠️ openstack-baremetal-operator-crc-podified-edpm-baremetal SKIPPED Skipped due to failed job openstack-baremetal-operator-content-provider

[rabi]

recheck

[softwarefactory-project-zuul]

Build failed (check pipeline). Post recheck (without leading slash)
to rerun all jobs. Make sure the failure cause has been resolved before
you rerun jobs.

https://softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/t/rdoproject.org/buildset/af77385bf40b43f58d3aa508929daf34

❌ openstack-baremetal-operator-content-provider FAILURE in 12m 34s
⚠️ openstack-baremetal-operator-crc-podified-edpm-baremetal SKIPPED Skipped due to failed job openstack-baremetal-operator-content-provider

[softwarefactory-project-zuul]

Build failed (check pipeline). Post recheck (without leading slash)
to rerun all jobs. Make sure the failure cause has been resolved before
you rerun jobs.

https://softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/t/rdoproject.org/buildset/232de0b0efcb4315b83aab3a3d43f038

❌ openstack-baremetal-operator-content-provider FAILURE in 11m 57s
⚠️ openstack-baremetal-operator-crc-podified-edpm-baremetal SKIPPED Skipped due to failed job openstack-baremetal-operator-content-provider

[rabi]

recheck

[abays]

Putting this on hold to see if we want to update #211 instead.

@rabi Does #211 incidentally solve the same problem that you describe in this PR's description?

[rabi]

Putting this on hold to see if we want to update #211 instead.

@rabi Does #211 incidentally solve the same problem that you describe in this PR's description?

No it does not in its current state. It needs to be reworked like this. The reason I mentioned that here is because it was started earlier and we discussed some of these things there too and it led to further investigation.

[rabi]

/test openstack-baremetal-operator-build-deploy

[rabi]

Putting this on hold to see if we want to update #211 instead.

@rabi Does #211 incidentally solve the same problem that you describe in this PR's description?

No it does not in its current state. It needs to be reworked like this. The reason I mentioned that here is because it was started earlier and we discussed some of these things there too and it led to further investigation.

@abays I've not seen any updates to the other PR. As we want this fix in 18.0.2 ASAP, I think we should merge and backport this.

[hjensas]

/lgtm

[rabi]

/cherrypick 18.0.0-proposed

[openshift-cherrypick-robot]

@rabi: #217 failed to apply on top of branch "18.0.0-proposed":

Applying: Remove PreprovisioningNetworkData
Using index info to reconstruct a base tree...
M	api/bases/baremetal.openstack.org_openstackbaremetalsets.yaml
M	api/v1beta1/openstackbaremetalset_types.go
M	api/v1beta1/zz_generated.deepcopy.go
M	config/crd/bases/baremetal.openstack.org_openstackbaremetalsets.yaml
M	pkg/openstackbaremetalset/baremetalhost.go
M	tests/functional/openstackbaremetalset_controller_test.go
Falling back to patching base and 3-way merge...
Auto-merging tests/functional/openstackbaremetalset_controller_test.go
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in tests/functional/openstackbaremetalset_controller_test.go
Auto-merging pkg/openstackbaremetalset/baremetalhost.go
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in pkg/openstackbaremetalset/baremetalhost.go
Auto-merging config/crd/bases/baremetal.openstack.org_openstackbaremetalsets.yaml
Auto-merging api/v1beta1/zz_generated.deepcopy.go
Auto-merging api/v1beta1/openstackbaremetalset_types.go
Auto-merging api/bases/baremetal.openstack.org_openstackbaremetalsets.yaml
error: Failed to merge in the changes.
hint: Use 'git am --show-current-patch=diff' to see the failed patch
Patch failed at 0001 Remove PreprovisioningNetworkData
When you have resolved this problem, run "git am --continue".
If you prefer to skip this patch, run "git am --skip" instead.
To restore the original branch and stop patching, run "git am --abort".

In response to this:

/cherrypick 18.0.0-proposed

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.