OCPBUGS-61458: fix MachineSet YAML template

[yapei]

$ oc explain machineset.spec.template.spec.providerSpec
GROUP:      machine.openshift.io
KIND:       MachineSet
VERSION:    v1beta1

FIELD: providerSpec <Object>


DESCRIPTION:
    providerSpec details Provider-specific configuration to use during node
    creation.
    
FIELDS:
  value	<Object>
    value is an inlined, serialized representation of the resource
    configuration. It is recommended that providers maintain their own
    versioned API types that should be serialized/deserialized from this
    field, akin to component config.

Before:

After:

[yapei]

/jira refresh

[openshift-ci-robot]

@yapei: No Jira issue is referenced in the title of this pull request.
To reference a jira issue, add 'XYZ-NNN:' to the title of this pull request and request another refresh with /jira refresh.

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.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@yapei: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-61458, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

• bug is open, matching expected state (open)
• bug target version (4.21.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.21.0)
• bug is in the state ASSIGNED, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @yapei

The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

In response to this:

$ oc explain machineset.spec.template.spec.providerSpec
GROUP:      machine.openshift.io
KIND:       MachineSet
VERSION:    v1beta1

FIELD: providerSpec <Object>


DESCRIPTION:
   providerSpec details Provider-specific configuration to use during node
   creation.
   
FIELDS:
 value	<Object>
   value is an inlined, serialized representation of the resource
   configuration. It is recommended that providers maintain their own
   versioned API types that should be serialized/deserialized from this
   field, akin to component config.

Before:

After:

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.

[yapei]

/jira refresh

[openshift-ci]

@openshift-ci-robot: GitHub didn't allow me to request PR reviews from the following users: yapei.

Note that only openshift members and repo collaborators can review this PR, and authors cannot review their own PRs.

In response to this:

@yapei: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-61458, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

• bug is open, matching expected state (open)
• bug target version (4.21.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.21.0)
• bug is in the state ASSIGNED, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @yapei

The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

In response to this:

$ oc explain machineset.spec.template.spec.providerSpec
GROUP:      machine.openshift.io
KIND:       MachineSet
VERSION:    v1beta1

FIELD: providerSpec <Object>


DESCRIPTION:
   providerSpec details Provider-specific configuration to use during node
   creation.
   
FIELDS:
 value	<Object>
   value is an inlined, serialized representation of the resource
   configuration. It is recommended that providers maintain their own
   versioned API types that should be serialized/deserialized from this
   field, akin to component config.

Before:

After:

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.

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.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@yapei: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-61458, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

• bug is open, matching expected state (open)
• bug target version (4.21.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.21.0)
• bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @yapei

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.

[openshift-ci]

@openshift-ci-robot: GitHub didn't allow me to request PR reviews from the following users: yapei.

Note that only openshift members and repo collaborators can review this PR, and authors cannot review their own PRs.

In response to this:

@yapei: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-61458, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

• bug is open, matching expected state (open)
• bug target version (4.21.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.21.0)
• bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @yapei

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.

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.

[yapei]

@Mylanos Could you help review the PR changes? Thanks

[yapei]

/test frontend

[openshift-ci]

@yapei: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name	Commit	Details	Required	Rerun command
ci/prow/frontend	2223e22	link	true	/test frontend

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.

[logonoff]

/lgtm

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: logonoff, yapei

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

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• frontend/OWNERS [logonoff]

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