OCPBUGS-69409: Ensure pin.ParentDevice length is ok in PhaseOffsetPin()

[javierpena]

In some cases, it is possible that the pinParentDevice property of a dpll pin is an empty list, such as when it is a SyncE port. Adding a check in PhaseOffsetPin() to avoid a crash.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@javierpena: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-69409, which is invalid:

• 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-66053 to target a version in 4.21.0, but it targets "4.21" instead

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:

In some cases, it is possible that the pinParentDevice property of a dpll pin is an empty list, such as when it is a SyncE port. Adding a check in PhaseOffsetPin() to avoid a crash.

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]

Hi @javierpena. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a github.com member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

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.

[javierpena]

/jira refresh

[openshift-ci-robot]

@javierpena: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-69409, which is invalid:

• expected dependent Jira Issue OCPBUGS-66053 to target a version in 4.21.0, but it targets "4.21" instead

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.

[javierpena]

/jira refresh

[openshift-ci-robot]

@javierpena: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-69409, 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 (4.20.z) matches configured target version for branch (4.20.z)
• bug is in the state ASSIGNED, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)
• release note type set to "Release Note Not Required"
• dependent bug Jira Issue OCPBUGS-66053 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-66053 targets the "4.21.0" version, which is one of the valid target versions: 4.21.0
• bug has dependents

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @yliu127

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.

[lack]

/ok-to-test

[lack]

/label backport-risk-assessed

[lack]

/lgtm

[nocturnalastro]

/hold

[lack]

/unhold Cleared for merge in the next 4.20.z

[lack]

/approve

[lack]

/verified later @Bonnie-Block

[openshift-ci-robot]

@lack: This PR has been marked to be verified later by @bonnie-block.

Details

In response to this:

/verified later @Bonnie-Block

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.

[jzding]

/lgtm

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: edcdavid, javierpena, jzding, lack

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 [jzding]

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

[openshift-ci]

@javierpena: all tests passed!

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.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@javierpena: Jira Issue OCPBUGS-69409: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged:

• openshift/linuxptp-daemon#514

This pull request has the verified-later tag and will need to be manually moved to VERIFIED after testing. Jira Issue OCPBUGS-69409 has been moved to the MODIFIED state.

Details

In response to this:

In some cases, it is possible that the pinParentDevice property of a dpll pin is an empty list, such as when it is a SyncE port. Adding a check in PhaseOffsetPin() to avoid a crash.

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.