[18.0-fr5] [OSPRH-26273] Update observability-operator

[vyzigold]

Update OBO to v1.0.0 (newer versions would require updates to k8s.io/* as well). This will enable us to use the newest CRD fields easily from telemetry-operator. Mainly the NodeSelector and the TLS related fields.

This is an automated cherry-pick of #844

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: vyzigold

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 [vyzigold]

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

[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/50f6e23632794671a29fb6cd7420e578

✔️ openstack-k8s-operators-content-provider SUCCESS in 57m 54s
❌ telemetry-operator-multinode-cloudkitty FAILURE in 31m 53s
✔️ telemetry-openstack-meta-content-provider-master SUCCESS in 2h 20m 38s
❌ telemetry-operator-multinode-default-telemetry FAILURE in 37m 26s
✔️ functional-tests-osp18 SUCCESS in 2h 03m 26s

[vyzigold]

recheck

[vyzigold]

/retest

[vyzigold]

/retest

[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/cf29d8fda74e426891f9fb5553a6609f

✔️ openstack-k8s-operators-content-provider SUCCESS in 1h 53m 13s
❌ telemetry-operator-multinode-cloudkitty FAILURE in 27m 07s
✔️ telemetry-openstack-meta-content-provider-master SUCCESS in 2h 31m 57s
✔️ telemetry-operator-multinode-default-telemetry SUCCESS in 1h 32m 51s
✔️ functional-tests-osp18 SUCCESS in 2h 12m 05s

[vyzigold]

/retest

[vyzigold]

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/d4935d03ee7b470a8360cfe4fbc6b47f

✔️ openstack-k8s-operators-content-provider SUCCESS in 38m 08s
❌ telemetry-operator-multinode-cloudkitty FAILURE in 27m 58s
✔️ telemetry-openstack-meta-content-provider-master SUCCESS in 2h 36m 44s
❌ telemetry-operator-multinode-default-telemetry FAILURE in 19m 43s
✔️ functional-tests-osp18 SUCCESS in 2h 18m 14s

[vyzigold]

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/c2cff666cedf4d51ab1214f1552a89f7

✔️ openstack-k8s-operators-content-provider SUCCESS in 1h 46m 39s
❌ telemetry-operator-multinode-cloudkitty FAILURE in 29m 07s
✔️ telemetry-openstack-meta-content-provider-master SUCCESS in 2h 31m 32s
✔️ telemetry-operator-multinode-default-telemetry SUCCESS in 1h 30m 27s
✔️ functional-tests-osp18 SUCCESS in 2h 12m 48s

[vyzigold]

recheck

[jlarriba]

It seems like we are adding a new required field:

.spec.customMonitoringStack.prometheusConfig.webTLSConfig.privateKey.key is new and may not be required

[vyzigold]

/override ci/prow/precommit-check

[openshift-ci]

@vyzigold: Overrode contexts on behalf of vyzigold: ci/prow/precommit-check

Details

In response to this:

/override ci/prow/precommit-check

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.

[vyzigold]

@jlarriba yes. this is known and it has been discussed on the original PR on main. I just compared the list of the new required fields we get here against the list in the original PR #844 (comment) and they're the same. There was a discussion about this on the original PR and on slack and the decision was that this should be fine since all the new required fields are enveloped inside new optional structs.