OCPBUGS-56925: Updated the creating-manifest-file-customized-br-ex-br…

[dfitzmau]

Version(s):
4.16+

Issue:
OCPBUGS-56925

Link to docs preview:

• br-ex file

• SME has approved this change.
• QE has approved this change.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@dfitzmau: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-56925, which is invalid:

• expected the bug to target the "4.20.0" version, 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.

In response to this:

…idge.adoc for individual hostname paths

Version(s):

Issue:

Link to docs preview:

QE review:

• QE has approved this change.

Additional information:

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.

[ocpdocs-previewbot]

🤖 Thu Jun 19 16:35:55 - Prow CI generated the docs preview:

https://94273--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/installing/installing_bare_metal/bare-metal-postinstallation-configuration.html
https://94273--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/installing/installing_bare_metal/ipi/ipi-install-installation-workflow.html
https://94273--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/installing/installing_bare_metal/upi/installing-bare-metal.html
https://94273--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/installing/installing_bare_metal/upi/installing-bare-metal-network-customizations.html
https://94273--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/installing/installing_bare_metal/upi/installing-restricted-networks-bare-metal.html

[bergerhoffer]

The branch/enterprise-4.20 label has been added to this PR.

This is because your PR targets the main branch and is labeled for enterprise-4.19. And any PR going into main must also target the latest version branch (enterprise-4.20).

If the update in your PR does NOT apply to version 4.20 onward, please re-target this PR to go directly into the appropriate version branch or branches (enterprise-4.x) instead of main.

[cybertron]

/lgtm

[mburke5678]

Might be nice if you could could show an example of not specifying a hostname path for one of the two example.

Also, I find it a bit confusing, in <3> and <4> are the same thing (right), yet the wording is completely different.

Suggested change

	<3> If you have a single global configuration specified in an `/etc/nmstate/openshift/cluster.yml` configuration file that you want to apply to all nodes in your cluster, you do not need to specify the hostname path for each node, such as `/etc/nmstate/openshift/<node_hostname>.yml`. The `worker` role is the default role for nodes in your cluster. The `.yaml` extension does not work when specifying the hostname path for each node or all nodes in the `MachineConfig` manifest file.
	<4> For each node in your cluster, specify the hostname path to your node and the base-64 encoded Ignition configuration file data for the machine type.
	<3> For each node in your cluster, specify the hostname path to your node and the base-64 encoded Ignition configuration file data for the machine type. The `.yaml` extension does not work when specifying the hostname path.
	+
	Alternatively, If you have a single global configuration specified in an `/etc/nmstate/openshift/cluster.yml` configuration file that you want to apply to all nodes in your cluster, you do not need to specify the hostname path for each node. The `worker` role is the default role for nodes in your cluster. For example:
	+
	[source,yaml]
	----
	- contents:
	source: data:text/plain;charset=utf-8;base64,<base64_encoded_nmstate_configuration>
	mode: 0644
	overwrite: true
	----

(or whatever that ^^ is supposed to look like.

[dfitzmau]

Great suggestion, @mburke5678 . I implemented what you suggestion. Fresh eyes are always good thing!

[mburke5678]

@dfitzmau Just a couple random thoughts. Maybe I am missing something. Otherwise LGTM

[openshift-ci]

New changes are detected. LGTM label has been removed.

[openshift-ci]

@dfitzmau: all tests passed!

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

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.