[release-4.21] OCPBUGS-99483: Add e2e test for Gateway API infrastructure annotations

[redhat-chai-bot]

Cherry-pick of #1331 to release-4.21.

Adds testGatewayAPIInfrastructureAnnotations to verify that annotations specified in Gateway.Spec.Infrastructure.Annotations are correctly propagated to the underlying Service resource. The test is AWS-specific and validates the internal load balancer annotation behavior.

Cherry-pick of: #1331

---

@rikatz requested in Slack thread

[openshift-merge-bot]

Pipeline controller notification
This repo is configured to use the pipeline controller. Second-stage tests will be triggered either automatically or after lgtm label is added, depending on the repository configuration. The pipeline controller will automatically detect which contexts are required and will utilize /test Prow commands to trigger the second stage.

For optional jobs, comment /test ? to see a list of all defined jobs. To trigger manually all jobs from second stage use /pipeline required command.

This repository is configured in: LGTM mode

[openshift-ci-robot]

@redhat-chai-bot: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-99483, which is invalid:

• expected the bug to target the "4.21.z" version, but no target version was set
• release note text must be set and not match the template OR release note type must be set to "Release Note Not Required". For more information you can reference the OpenShift Bug Process.
• expected dependent Jira Issue OCPBUGS-99484 to be in one of the following states: VERIFIED, RELEASE PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA), CLOSED (CURRENT RELEASE), CLOSED (DONE), CLOSED (DONE-ERRATA), but it is New instead
• expected dependent Jira Issue OCPBUGS-99484 to target a version in 4.22.0, but no target version was set

Comment /jira refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Jira bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

Details

In response to this:

Cherry-pick of #1331 to release-4.21.

Adds testGatewayAPIInfrastructureAnnotations to verify that annotations specified in Gateway.Spec.Infrastructure.Annotations are correctly propagated to the underlying Service resource. The test is AWS-specific and validates the internal load balancer annotation behavior.

Cherry-pick of: #1331

---

@rikatz requested in Slack thread

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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[coderabbitai]

Important

Review skipped

Auto reviews are disabled on base/target branches other than the default branch.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Repository: openshift/coderabbit/.coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Enterprise

Run ID: e1cf88b5-d76e-4e5b-b5d2-c2d7ec84ce17

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:

• 🔍 Trigger review

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[rikatz]

/jira refresh

[openshift-ci-robot]

@rikatz: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-99483, which is invalid:

• expected the bug to target the "4.21.z" version, but no target version was set
• release note text must be set and not match the template OR release note type must be set to "Release Note Not Required". For more information you can reference the OpenShift Bug Process.
• expected dependent Jira Issue OCPBUGS-99484 to target a version in 4.22.0, but no target version was set

Comment /jira refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Jira bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

Details

In response to this:

/jira refresh

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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[rikatz]

/jira refresh

[openshift-ci-robot]

@rikatz: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-99483, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state.

7 validation(s) were run on this bug

• bug is open, matching expected state (open)
• bug target version (4.21.z) matches configured target version for branch (4.21.z)
• bug is in the state New, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)
• release note type set to "Release Note Not Required"
• dependent bug Jira Issue OCPBUGS-99484 is in the state Closed (Done), which is one of the valid states (VERIFIED, RELEASE PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA), CLOSED (CURRENT RELEASE), CLOSED (DONE), CLOSED (DONE-ERRATA))
• dependent Jira Issue OCPBUGS-99484 targets the "4.22.0" version, which is one of the valid target versions: 4.22.0
• bug has dependents

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @melvinjoseph86

Details

In response to this:

/jira refresh

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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[rikatz]

/lgtm
/approve

[openshift-merge-bot]

Scheduling tests matching the pipeline_run_if_changed or not excluded by pipeline_skip_if_only_changed parameters:
/test e2e-aws-operator
/test e2e-aws-ovn
/test e2e-aws-ovn-hypershift-conformance
/test e2e-aws-ovn-serial-1of2
/test e2e-aws-ovn-serial-2of2
/test e2e-aws-ovn-upgrade
/test e2e-aws-pre-release-ossm
/test e2e-azure-operator
/test e2e-gcp-operator
/test e2e-hypershift
/test e2e-vsphere-static-metallb-operator-gwapi

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: rikatz

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [rikatz]

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

[rikatz]

/jira refresh

[openshift-ci-robot]

@rikatz: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-99483, which is invalid:

• expected Jira Issue OCPBUGS-99483 to depend on a bug targeting a version in 4.22.0 and in one of the following states: VERIFIED, RELEASE PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA), CLOSED (CURRENT RELEASE), CLOSED (DONE), CLOSED (DONE-ERRATA), but no dependents were found

Comment /jira refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Jira bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

Details

In response to this:

/jira refresh

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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[rikatz]

/jira refresh

[openshift-ci-robot]

@rikatz: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-99483, which is invalid:

• expected Jira Issue OCPBUGS-99483 to depend on a bug targeting a version in 4.22.0 and in one of the following states: VERIFIED, RELEASE PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA), CLOSED (CURRENT RELEASE), CLOSED (DONE), CLOSED (DONE-ERRATA), but no dependents were found

Comment /jira refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Jira bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

Details

In response to this:

/jira refresh

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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[rikatz]

/jira refresh

[openshift-ci-robot]

@rikatz: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-99483, which is invalid:

• expected dependent Jira Issue OCPBUGS-99488 to be in one of the following states: VERIFIED, RELEASE PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA), CLOSED (CURRENT RELEASE), CLOSED (DONE), CLOSED (DONE-ERRATA), but it is New instead
• expected dependent Jira Issue OCPBUGS-99488 to target a version in 4.22.0, but no target version was set

Comment /jira refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Jira bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

Details

In response to this:

/jira refresh

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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[rikatz]

/jira refresh

[openshift-ci-robot]

@rikatz: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-99483, which is valid.

7 validation(s) were run on this bug

• bug is open, matching expected state (open)
• bug target version (4.21.z) matches configured target version for branch (4.21.z)
• bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)
• release note type set to "Release Note Not Required"
• dependent bug Jira Issue OCPBUGS-99488 is in the state Closed (Done), which is one of the valid states (VERIFIED, RELEASE PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA), CLOSED (CURRENT RELEASE), CLOSED (DONE), CLOSED (DONE-ERRATA))
• dependent Jira Issue OCPBUGS-99488 targets the "4.22.0" version, which is one of the valid target versions: 4.22.0
• bug has dependents

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @melvinjoseph86

Details

In response to this:

/jira refresh

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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[redhat-chai-bot]

/retest

[rikatz]

/retest-required

[openshift-ci]

@redhat-chai-bot: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name	Commit	Details	Required	Rerun command
ci/prow/e2e-aws-pre-release-ossm	4481019	link	false	/test e2e-aws-pre-release-ossm

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Details

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.

[rikatz]

/cc @Miciah
/assign @Miciah

for the backport-risk-assessed label

[Miciah]

This is a low-risk backport that only adds an E2E test.

/label backport-risk-assessed

By the way, is there a reason why the commit message of the backport is missing the original commit message's body?

Aside from that, I couldn't resist checking into why this wasn't a clean cherry-pick. In my analysis, I found two causes:

• We merged NE-2374: Add e2e test for Gateway API infrastructure annotations #1331 and then NE-2376: Remove restriction of unmanaged x-k8s.io #1336 and then to the main branch, but we backported them in reverse order: OCPBUGS-74373: Remove restriction of unmanaged x-k8s.io #1446 and now [release-4.21] OCPBUGS-99483: Add e2e test for Gateway API infrastructure annotations #1520. NE-2376: Remove restriction of unmanaged x-k8s.io #1336 changed the godoc for testOperatorDegradedCondition, which shows up in the diff context for [release-4.21] OCPBUGS-99483: Add e2e test for Gateway API infrastructure annotations #1520.
• [release-4.21] OCPBUGS-88295, OCPBUGS-88297, OCPBUGS-82146, OCPBUGS-78330, OCPBUGS-85550: Replace OLM-based Istio install with Sail Library #1442 included some conflict resolution that deleted a blank line in TestGatewayAPI. This blank line is in the diff context of NE-2374: Add e2e test for Gateway API infrastructure annotations #1331, and now [release-4.21] OCPBUGS-99483: Add e2e test for Gateway API infrastructure annotations #1520 restores the blank line.

So it comes down to these two things: cherry-picking out of order and inadvertently introducing some fuzz during conflict resolution. These two things don't cause any problems, but for future reference, I believe that the /cherry-pick automation could have handled this as a clean cherry-pick but for these two things. @coderabbitai, please double-check my analysis.

[coderabbitai]

Tip

For best results, initiate chat on the files or code changes.

🧩 Analysis chain

🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
set -euo pipefail

repo="openshift/cluster-ingress-operator"

echo "== Pull request metadata and commits =="
for pr in 1331 1336 1442 1446 1520; do
  echo "-- PR #$pr --"
  gh pr view "$pr" --repo "$repo" --json number,title,baseRefName,mergedAt,mergeCommit,commits \
    --jq '{number,title,base:.baseRefName,mergedAt,mergeCommit:(.mergeCommit.oid // null),commits:[.commits[]|{oid:.oid,messageHeadline:.messageHeadline,messageBody:.messageBody}]}'
done

echo
echo "== Changed files / patches (context relevant to testOperatorDegradedCondition and TestGatewayAPI) =="
for pr in 1331 1336 1442 1446 1520; do
  echo "-- PR #$pr --"
  gh api "repos/$repo/pulls/$pr/files?per_page=100" --paginate \
    --jq '.[] | select(.patch | test("testOperatorDegradedCondition|TestGatewayAPI")) | {filename,status,patch}'
done

echo
echo "== Current checkout: relevant symbol contexts =="
candidate=$(fd -t f -e go . | xargs -r rg -l 'func TestGatewayAPI\b|testOperatorDegradedCondition' | head -n 1 || true)
if [[ -n "$candidate" ]]; then
  echo "-- $candidate --"
  rg -n -C 8 'func TestGatewayAPI\b|testOperatorDegradedCondition' "$candidate"
fi

Length of output: 27936

---

The first query already confirms the reversed #1331/#1336 → #1446 ordering and the missing commit body. I’ll make the remaining comparison at commit level, avoiding the null-patch condition that stopped the first command.

[redhat-chai-bot]

Thanks for adding the label and for the thorough analysis, @Miciah!

To answer your question about the commit message body: the cherry-pick branches were prepared and pushed to this fork externally — I only opened the PR itself. So I don't have direct insight into why the body was omitted during the cherry-pick. @rikatz would be the right person to answer that.

Your analysis on the merge order (#1331 → #1336 on main, but backported in reverse as #1446 then #1520) and the golang.org/x/crypto import difference makes sense as to why this wasn't a clean cherry-pick.

[Miciah]

Your analysis on the merge order (#1331 → #1336 on main, but backported in reverse as #1446 then #1520) and the golang.org/x/crypto import difference makes sense as to why this wasn't a clean cherry-pick.

I'm confused — I didn't say anything about golang.org/x/crypto.

[redhat-chai-bot]

You're right, apologies for the confusion — I misattributed that. Your comment was truncated in the notification I received, and I incorrectly filled in details that weren't there. Sorry about that!

[Miciah]

But for (1) the out-of-order cherry-picking of #1331 and #1336 and (2) the unnecessary deletion of a blank line during conflict resolution in #1442, could /cherry-pick automation have handled this as a clean cherry-pick?

[redhat-chai-bot]

Good question — the cherry-pick branches for this PR were prepared manually and pushed to the fork, rather than generated via /cherry-pick automation. @rikatz would be able to speak to whether the automation could have produced a clean cherry-pick here.

[rikatz]

I have asked chai-bot to do the cherry-pick on Slack, maybe what should have happened was chai-bot prepare the jira tickets and issue the cherry-pick command directly on the PR, tho I think at least chai-bot may be smarter than cherry-pick-bot in case the cherry-pick have conflicts.

This is something I will try on the next cherry-pick batch

[Miciah]

It would be ideal if chai-bot would try /cherry-pick and then fall back to preparing the commit itself if /cherry-pick failed. That would best utilize existing tooling, minimize token spend, and maximize consistency (assuming we don't eventually remove /cherry-pick and have chai-bot handle all backports).

[rikatz]

yes, the next cherry-pick I want to be explicit on it! There is one more on this group for this case of annotations and internal lb, I will try with it

[melvinjoseph86]

From the build log we can see this test is passing

https://gcsweb-ci.apps.ci.l2s4.p1.openshiftapps.com/gcs/test-platform-results/pr-logs/pull/openshift_cluster-ingress-operator/1520/pull-ci-openshift-cluster-ingress-operator-release-4.21-e2e-aws-operator/2080263246618562560/artifacts/e2e-aws-operator/test/build-log.txt
  --- PASS: TestAll/serial/TestGatewayAPI/testGatewayAPIInfrastructureAnnotations (14.04s)

Hence marking as verified
/verified by e2e

[openshift-ci-robot]

@melvinjoseph86: This PR has been marked as verified by e2e.

Details

In response to this:

From the build log we can see this test is passing

https://gcsweb-ci.apps.ci.l2s4.p1.openshiftapps.com/gcs/test-platform-results/pr-logs/pull/openshift_cluster-ingress-operator/1520/pull-ci-openshift-cluster-ingress-operator-release-4.21-e2e-aws-operator/2080263246618562560/artifacts/e2e-aws-operator/test/build-log.txt
 --- PASS: TestAll/serial/TestGatewayAPI/testGatewayAPIInfrastructureAnnotations (14.04s)

Hence marking as verified
/verified by e2e

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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@melvinjoseph86: This PR has been marked as verified by e2e.

Details

In response to this:

From the build log we can see this test is passing

https://gcsweb-ci.apps.ci.l2s4.p1.openshiftapps.com/gcs/test-platform-results/pr-logs/pull/openshift_cluster-ingress-operator/1520/pull-ci-openshift-cluster-ingress-operator-release-4.21-e2e-aws-operator/2080263246618562560/artifacts/e2e-aws-operator/test/build-log.txt
 --- PASS: TestAll/serial/TestGatewayAPI/testGatewayAPIInfrastructureAnnotations (14.04s)

Hence marking as verified
/verified by e2e

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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@redhat-chai-bot: Jira Issue Verification Checks: Jira Issue OCPBUGS-99483
✔️ This pull request was pre-merge verified.
✔️ All associated pull requests have merged.
✔️ All associated, merged pull requests were pre-merge verified.

Jira Issue OCPBUGS-99483 has been moved to the MODIFIED state and will move to the VERIFIED state when the change is available in an accepted nightly payload. 🕓

Details

In response to this:

Cherry-pick of #1331 to release-4.21.

Adds testGatewayAPIInfrastructureAnnotations to verify that annotations specified in Gateway.Spec.Infrastructure.Annotations are correctly propagated to the underlying Service resource. The test is AWS-specific and validates the internal load balancer annotation behavior.

Cherry-pick of: #1331

---

@rikatz requested in Slack thread

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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[openshift-merge-robot]

Fix included in release 4.21.0-0.nightly-2026-07-24-232310