OSDOCS-17086: Fix DITA compatibility errors in MicroShift low latency docs (CQA)

[DCChadwick]

Version(s):

Issue: OSDOCS-17086

Link to docs preview:

QE review:

• QE has approved this change.

Additional information:

[openshift-ci-robot]

@DCChadwick: This pull request references OSDOCS-17086 which is a valid jira issue.

Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the story to target the "4.22.0" version, but no target version was set.

Details

In response to this:

Version(s):

Issue: OSDOCS-17086

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.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@DCChadwick: This pull request references OSDOCS-17086 which is a valid jira issue.

Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the story to target the "4.22.0" version, but no target version was set.

Details

In response to this:

Version(s):

Issue: OSDOCS-17086

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]

🤖 Wed Feb 25 17:48:38 - Prow CI generated the docs preview:

https://107027--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/microshift/latest/microshift_configuring/microshift_low_latency/microshift-low-latency.html
https://107027--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/microshift/latest/microshift_configuring/microshift_low_latency/microshift-workload-partitioning.html

[ShaunaDiaz]

@DCChadwick There is already a procedure in the docs, see https://docs.redhat.com/en/documentation/red_hat_build_of_microshift/4.21/html/configuring/configuring-low-latency#microshift-low-latency-config-yaml_microshift-low-latency. I am not sure why we have a new procedure added here?

[DCChadwick]

@ShaunaDiaz - Thanks! Great catch. There's definitely overlap , but from what I understand (and I could totally have this wrong) LLC locality is a highly specific Tech preview feature that targets AMD CPUs. I'm thinking that if we drop this PR entirely, users on Intel CPUs might just copy/paste the currently documented procedure as is and maybe break their clusters or miss the TP warnings.

I could rewrite this module to clearly state it's an add-on configuration instead of presenting it as a standalone file replacement. But the Jira ticket is a little vague, so I could've just misunderstood what was needed. So first, I'll check in with Kathryn and Ashley to see what they're thinking.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@DCChadwick: This pull request references OSDOCS-17086 which is a valid jira issue.

Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the story to target the "4.22.0" version, but no target version was set.

Details

In response to this:

Version(s):

Issue: OSDOCS-17086

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.

[ShaunaDiaz]

@ShaunaDiaz - Thanks! Great catch. There's definitely overlap , but from what I understand (and I could totally have this wrong) LLC locality is a highly specific Tech preview feature that targets AMD CPUs. I'm thinking that if we drop this PR entirely, users on Intel CPUs might just copy/paste the currently documented procedure as is and maybe break their clusters or miss the TP warnings.

I could rewrite this module to clearly state it's an add-on configuration instead of presenting it as a standalone file replacement. But the Jira ticket is a little vague, so I could've just misunderstood what was needed. So first, I'll check in with Kathryn and Ashley to see what they're thinking.

@DCChadwick This is not what a CQA is. This feature was added already and does not need to be rewritten. Also, do not remove related Additional resources from between modules. These are to stay in place for conversion. I urge you again to review the scope of CQA work. I also urge you to get a clear understanding of what MicroShift is (it does not have clusters).

[DCChadwick]

@ShaunaDiaz Thanks for the feedback. I have removed the out-of-scope llc-config module and restored the original placement of the Additional resources sections to meet the CQA structural requirements.

[openshift-ci]

@DCChadwick: 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.