✨ Add support for parsing and persisting explicit pkg.Release field by rashmigottipati · Pull Request #2543 · operator-framework/operator-controller

rashmigottipati · 2026-03-06T16:37:07Z

Description

Summary

Adds support for parsing the explicit pkg.Release field from bundle metadata and persisting it through cluster storage (roundtripping). This is gated by the new BundleReleaseSupport alpha feature gate (disabled by default).

Changes

Added BundleReleaseSupport alpha feature gate (disabled by default)
Added Release field to BundleMetadata CRD type
Added BundleReleaseKey label constant for annotation storage
Updated bundleutil.parseVersionRelease() to: Parse explicit pkg.Release when feature gate enabled and field present. Fall back to legacy registry+v1 behavior (release in build metadata) otherwise
Updated bundleutil.MetadataFor() to serialize release value from VersionRelease
Added roundtripping support: store release in CRD field and annotations, read it back in filters and controllers

Feature Gate Behavior

When enabled:

Bundles with explicit pkg.Release field: release parsed separately, build metadata preserved for proper semver purpose
Bundles without explicit release: falls back to registry+v1 parsing (release from build metadata)

When feature gate disabled:

All bundles use registry+v1 parsing (release from build metadata)
Explicit pkg.Release field ignored

Reviewer Checklist

API Go Documentation
Tests: Unit Tests
Comprehensive Commit Messages
Links to related GitHub Issue(s)

Link to Github Issue: #2495
Epic: #2479

netlify · 2026-03-06T16:37:13Z

✅ Deploy Preview for olmv1 ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	`4519cc6`
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/olmv1/deploys/69d8691c7708360008a53770
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-2543--olmv1.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration.

openshift-ci · 2026-03-06T16:37:14Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign kevinrizza for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

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

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

OWNERS

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

Copilot

Pull request overview

This PR introduces an alpha feature gate to allow OLMv1 upgrade resolution to treat “re-released” bundles (same semver, higher release/build value like 2.0.0+1 -> 2.0.0+2) as valid successors when explicitly enabled.

Changes:

Added ReleaseVersionPriority feature gate (Alpha, default disabled).
Added SameVersionHigherRelease() predicate and integrated it into SuccessorsOf() behind the feature gate.
Added unit tests for SameVersionHigherRelease() and for SuccessorsOf() with the gate disabled.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 5 out of 5 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
internal/operator-controller/features/features.go	Defines the new `ReleaseVersionPriority` feature gate and its spec.
internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/successors.go	Conditionally expands successor matching to include same-version/higher-release bundles when gated on.
internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/bundle_predicates.go	Adds the `SameVersionHigherRelease()` predicate.
internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/bundle_predicates_test.go	Adds predicate unit tests including edge cases.
internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/successors_test.go	Adds a regression test to ensure default (gate-off) behavior does not accept higher-release bundles.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/successors.go

internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/successors_test.go

codecov · 2026-03-06T16:56:51Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 78.43137% with 11 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 68.93%. Comparing base (b6dfd40) to head (4519cc6).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...or-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/successors.go	62.50%	3 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
applyconfigurations/api/v1/bundlemetadata.go	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
internal/operator-controller/bundleutil/bundle.go	92.59%	1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2543      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   68.91%   68.93%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         139      139              
  Lines        9863     9900      +37     
==========================================
+ Hits         6797     6825      +28     
- Misses       2559     2565       +6     
- Partials      507      510       +3

Flag	Coverage Δ
e2e	`37.49% <31.37%> (-0.19%)`	⬇️
experimental-e2e	`52.05% <31.37%> (-0.25%)`	⬇️
unit	`53.65% <76.47%> (+0.11%)`	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 5 out of 5 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/successors_test.go

joelanford · 2026-03-07T12:44:47Z

If I understand this correctly, it looks like this introduces the new behavior that an explicit upgrade edge doesn't actually have to exist in the catalog to upgrade to a bundle that has the same version and a higher release. Is that the intent? (If so let's make that clear in the PR description).

Is it also the intent that we'll inherit the upgrade edges of the first release of the version?

internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/bundle_predicates_test.go

internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/successors.go

internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/bundle_predicates.go

grokspawn · 2026-03-09T20:13:10Z

We discussed earlier today. I think the first step is to essentially revert #2273 so that we're not attempting to interpret build metadata as release info anymore. Any catalogs built with tooling that supports release versioning will automagically propagate the build metadata into the CSV's spec.release field anyway, so regardless of whether the operator author used the old build metadata approach or the new spec.release approach, they would still have spec.release here.

~~The next step is to ensure that we're sorting successors using the CompositeVersion, which is easily performed if using the Bundle comparator during the sort.~~

~~This will prefer version+release over version.~~

#2273 makes the claim that future bundle types will drop this approach, not that registry+v1 bundles should. So that's my bad.
From the perspective of fulfilling handling precedents for registry+v1 bundles, we need to retain the ability to differentiate/order them by build metadata. :(

grokspawn · 2026-03-09T20:25:53Z

If I understand this correctly, it looks like this introduces the new behavior that an explicit upgrade edge doesn't actually have to exist in the catalog to upgrade to a bundle that has the same version and a higher release. Is that the intent? (If so let's make that clear in the PR description).

Is it also the intent that we'll inherit the upgrade edges of the first release of the version?

Sadly, we have to rely on the presence of existing graph edges or we break assumptions users have with the registry+v1 bundle format, coming from v0.

So even though we have the ability to prefer version+release over version, since replaces/skips use named bundles instead of bundle versions we have to support the older behavior.

joelanford · 2026-03-11T13:10:47Z

I think the first step is to essentially revert #2273 so that we're not attempting to interpret build metadata as release info anymore.

That would be a regression of a bug fix that #2273 made though, right?

Sadly, we have to rely on the presence of existing graph edges or we break assumptions users have with the registry+v1 bundle format, coming from v0.

So even though we have the ability to prefer version+release over version, since replaces/skips use named bundles instead of bundle versions we have to support the older behavior.

Yeah, agreed. I reached the same conclusion after thinking about this more.

So if I understand correctly now:

The existing code on main already honors the upgrade graph and orders "same version, different release" correctly when parsing from build metadata
The existing code on main knows nothing about the new release field.

So the change we need now is "look for release in the olm.package property, and if present, prefer it over build metadata"?

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 5 out of 5 changed files in this pull request and generated 4 comments.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/successors.go

internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/bundle_predicates_test.go

internal/operator-controller/resolve/resolver.go

internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/successors.go

grokspawn · 2026-03-12T21:24:39Z

Adjusted my comments. I missed the part of the #2273 description when it said that we wouldn't divert from semver ordering for any new bundle formats.
From the perspective of registry+v1 bundles, this is precedent and we should support the new case with .spec.release is available, otherwise falling back on the 'is it bundle metadata' ordering logic.

grokspawn · 2026-04-07T18:24:46Z

@rashmigottipati would you please resolve the copilot comments in this review? I'm trying to not duplicate guidance with them, and it's challenging to know what is still current.

What I have been doing is:

thumbs-up and resolve, for good feedback that I updated
thumbs-down and resolve, for clear hallucinations or obvious craziness
thumbs-down and DON'T resolve, for a disagreement I cannot dismiss (and we can talk more about).

WDYT?

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 12 out of 12 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 comments.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

internal/operator-controller/bundleutil/bundle_test.go

internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/bundle_predicates_test.go

internal/operator-controller/features/features.go

pedjak

Thanks for the PR! Here are some review comments on the implementation.

internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/compare/compare.go

internal/operator-controller/bundleutil/bundle.go

internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/successors.go

internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/bundle_predicates.go

internal/operator-controller/features/features.go

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 12 out of 12 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/bundle_predicates.go

internal/operator-controller/bundleutil/bundle.go

joelanford · 2026-04-08T19:19:55Z

internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/compare/compare.go

+// and falls back to build metadata comparison if equal. When disabled, it uses
+// version+release from build metadata (backward compatible).
 func ByVersionAndRelease(b1, b2 declcfg.Bundle) int {
+	if features.OperatorControllerFeatureGate.Enabled(features.BundleReleaseSupport) {


This change feels off to me.

It seems like this function shouldn't change at all. The change, as I understand it, boils down to how we build a version/release.

Without the feature gate: Only do it the legacy way by inspecting/parsing build metadata

With the feature gate: If release field is set, parse it directly. Only if unset do we fall back to legacy registry+v1 build metadata parsing.

But then once we have a VersionRelease, the comparison is the same.

Am I missing something else?

Maybe the thing I'm missing is:

operator-registry has a CompositeVersion type

operator-controller has a VersionRelease type.

These represent the same exact concept, and we're trying to move in the direction of using the operator-registry variant?

IMO, we shouldn't mix them. We should pick one and delete the other.

I completely agree that we need to consolidate to a single representative type.
This PR is not intended to force the type consistency yet, since if it adopted the CompositeVersion type right now it would lack a formal Release type which we determined was essential to encourage broad adoption.
It just provides the featuregate and the sensitivity to an explicit release version.
I'd intended to merge operator-framework/operator-registry#1938 and then we would have follow-ups to op-reg & op-con to adopt the base type consistently throughout.
I was just hoping to be able to merge the two PRs independently.

So WDYT about this PR focusing on "if release explicitly set, load it into VersionRelease value". And then a later PR comes in a moves everything over to the operator-registry types/comparisons?

Seems reasonable to me.

Thanks for the thorough review Joe. Your suggestions sound good to me. I've updated the PR to focus on:

If pkg.Release is explicitly set (and feature gate enabled), parse it and load into VersionRelease value

Roundtrip it through CRD field and annotations

Removed all the changes to comparison logic

The type consolidation with operator-registry's CompositeVersion can happen in a follow-up PR once operator-framework/operator-registry#1938 is merged.

internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/compare/compare.go

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 9 out of 9 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/successors.go

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 19 out of 19 changed files in this pull request and generated 5 comments.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

internal/operator-controller/controllers/clusterextension_reconcile_steps.go

internal/operator-controller/controllers/boxcutter_reconcile_steps.go

internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/successors.go

api/v1/clusterextension_types.go

internal/operator-controller/controllers/clusterextension_controller.go

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 19 out of 19 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

api/v1/clusterextension_types.go

Signed-off-by: Rashmi Gottipati <rgottipa@redhat.com>

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings March 6, 2026 16:37

openshift-ci bot requested review from joelanford and perdasilva March 6, 2026 16:37

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of rashmigottipati March 6, 2026 16:37 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Mar 6, 2026

View reviewed changes

internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/successors.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/successors_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings March 6, 2026 17:34

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of rashmigottipati March 6, 2026 17:34 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Mar 6, 2026

View reviewed changes

internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/successors_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

rashmigottipati self-assigned this Mar 6, 2026

rashmigottipati linked an issue Mar 6, 2026 that may be closed by this pull request

[epic] leverage registry+v1 composite version for bundle ordering #2479

Open

3 tasks

rashmigottipati removed a link to an issue Mar 6, 2026

[epic] leverage registry+v1 composite version for bundle ordering #2479

Open

3 tasks

rashmigottipati requested a review from grokspawn March 6, 2026 18:27

joelanford reviewed Mar 7, 2026

View reviewed changes

internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/bundle_predicates_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

joelanford reviewed Mar 7, 2026

View reviewed changes

internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/successors.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

perdasilva reviewed Mar 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/bundle_predicates.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings March 12, 2026 19:55

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of rashmigottipati March 12, 2026 19:56 View session

rashmigottipati force-pushed the oprun-4277-implementation branch from 5681488 to 8dcab49 Compare March 12, 2026 20:00

Copilot AI reviewed Mar 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

rashmigottipati force-pushed the oprun-4277-implementation branch from a2e5062 to 1e9cded Compare April 2, 2026 20:52

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings April 2, 2026 20:52

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of rashmigottipati April 2, 2026 20:54 View session

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings April 7, 2026 19:54

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of rashmigottipati April 7, 2026 19:55 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Apr 7, 2026

View reviewed changes

internal/operator-controller/bundleutil/bundle_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/bundle_predicates_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

internal/operator-controller/features/features.go Show resolved Hide resolved

pedjak reviewed Apr 8, 2026

View reviewed changes

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings April 8, 2026 18:36

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of rashmigottipati April 8, 2026 18:36 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Apr 8, 2026

View reviewed changes

internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/bundle_predicates.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

rashmigottipati requested a review from joelanford April 8, 2026 18:47

joelanford reviewed Apr 8, 2026

View reviewed changes

internal/operator-controller/bundleutil/bundle.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

joelanford reviewed Apr 8, 2026

View reviewed changes

internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/compare/compare.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings April 8, 2026 19:41

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of rashmigottipati April 8, 2026 19:42 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Apr 8, 2026

View reviewed changes

internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/successors.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

joelanford reviewed Apr 8, 2026

View reviewed changes

internal/operator-controller/catalogmetadata/filter/successors.go Show resolved Hide resolved

rashmigottipati changed the title ~~✨ Support explicit pkg.Release field with build metadata fallback for bundle comparison~~ ✨ Add support for parsing and persisting explicit pkg.Release field Apr 9, 2026

rashmigottipati force-pushed the oprun-4277-implementation branch from 8d6dda3 to d7d824c Compare April 9, 2026 20:45

rashmigottipati requested review from Copilot and joelanford April 9, 2026 20:50

rashmigottipati force-pushed the oprun-4277-implementation branch from d7d824c to aa0a0dc Compare April 9, 2026 21:00

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of rashmigottipati April 9, 2026 21:00 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Apr 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

rashmigottipati force-pushed the oprun-4277-implementation branch from aa0a0dc to 0ba7072 Compare April 9, 2026 21:26

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings April 9, 2026 21:34

rashmigottipati force-pushed the oprun-4277-implementation branch from 0ba7072 to 630c47f Compare April 9, 2026 21:34

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of rashmigottipati April 9, 2026 21:35 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Apr 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

api/v1/clusterextension_types.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

adds support for parsing explicit pkg.Release field

4519cc6

Signed-off-by: Rashmi Gottipati <rgottipa@redhat.com>

rashmigottipati force-pushed the oprun-4277-implementation branch from 630c47f to 4519cc6 Compare April 10, 2026 03:06

Conversation

rashmigottipati commented Mar 6, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Description

Summary

Changes

Feature Gate Behavior

Reviewer Checklist

Uh oh!

netlify bot commented Mar 6, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

✅ Deploy Preview for olmv1 ready!

Uh oh!

openshift-ci bot commented Mar 6, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Mar 6, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

joelanford commented Mar 7, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

grokspawn commented Mar 9, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

grokspawn commented Mar 9, 2026

Uh oh!

joelanford commented Mar 11, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

grokspawn commented Mar 12, 2026

Uh oh!

grokspawn commented Apr 7, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

pedjak left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

joelanford Apr 8, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rashmigottipati commented Mar 6, 2026 •

edited

Loading

netlify bot commented Mar 6, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Mar 6, 2026 •

edited

Loading

grokspawn commented Mar 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading

rashmigottipati Apr 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading