chore: updated the okp image pull url

[Jared-Sprague]

Description

Updating the OKP image pull URL to the official RHOKP registry.redhat.io image URL

Type of change

• Refactor
• New feature
• Bug fix
• CVE fix
• Optimization
• [ x] Documentation Update
• Configuration Update
• Bump-up service version
• Bump-up dependent library
• Bump-up library or tool used for development (does not change the final image)
• CI configuration change
• Konflux configuration change
• Unit tests improvement
• Integration tests improvement
• End to end tests improvement
• Benchmarks improvement

Tools used to create PR

none

Related Tickets & Documents

none

Checklist before requesting a review

• [ x] I have performed a self-review of my code.
• [ x] PR has passed all pre-merge test jobs.
• [ x] If it is a core feature, I have added thorough tests.

Testing

• one line documentation update, review for any typos

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Updated OKP launch guide to reference the latest container image from the Red Hat registry.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

Updated the OKP launch command in documentation to reference a new Red Hat container registry image (registry.redhat.io/offline-knowledge-portal/rhokp-rhel9:latest) instead of the previous PaaS registry image, with no functional or runtime changes to the command itself.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Documentation docs/okp_guide.md	Updated container image reference in example OKP launch command to point to new Red Hat registry (registry.redhat.io/offline-knowledge-portal/rhokp-rhel9:latest).

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~2 minutes

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title accurately describes the main change: updating the OKP image pull URL in documentation from an old registry to the official Red Hat registry.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests

✨ Simplify code

• Create PR with simplified code

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[coderabbitai]

Caution

Some comments are outside the diff and can’t be posted inline due to platform limitations.

⚠️ Outside diff range comments (1)

docs/okp_guide.md (1)

45-46: ⚠️ Potential issue | 🟡 Minor

Update stale timeline text in the warning.

Line 45 says the official image is expected in “late March / early April of 2026,” which is now past (current date: April 28, 2026) and conflicts with the registry update in this PR.

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In `@docs/okp_guide.md` around lines 45 - 46, The warning text is stale—replace
the sentence that reads “The official OKP RAG image is expected in late March /
early April of 2026” with an up-to-date, non-misleading statement; edit the line
containing the exact string “The official OKP RAG image is expected in late
March / early April of 2026” (in the docs/okp_guide.md warning block) to either
remove the specific past dates and say “expected soon” or point readers to the
registry/announce channel for the latest availability, and ensure the wording
matches the registry update included in this PR.

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

Outside diff comments:
In `@docs/okp_guide.md`:
- Around line 45-46: The warning text is stale—replace the sentence that reads
“The official OKP RAG image is expected in late March / early April of 2026”
with an up-to-date, non-misleading statement; edit the line containing the exact
string “The official OKP RAG image is expected in late March / early April of
2026” (in the docs/okp_guide.md warning block) to either remove the specific
past dates and say “expected soon” or point readers to the registry/announce
channel for the latest availability, and ensure the wording matches the registry
update included in this PR.

---

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 4cff45ef-17c4-48c8-9dbf-c04575c0d8d4

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between c50425e and 170b7e0.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• docs/okp_guide.md

📜 Review details

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (10)

• GitHub Check: E2E: library mode / ci / group 2
• GitHub Check: E2E: server mode / ci / group 3
• GitHub Check: E2E: library mode / ci / group 3
• GitHub Check: E2E: server mode / ci / group 2
• GitHub Check: E2E: server mode / ci / group 1
• GitHub Check: E2E: library mode / ci / group 1
• GitHub Check: Pylinter
• GitHub Check: build-pr
• GitHub Check: E2E Tests for Lightspeed Evaluation job
• GitHub Check: Konflux kflux-prd-rh02 / lightspeed-stack-on-pull-request

🔇 Additional comments (1)

docs/okp_guide.md (1)

50-50: No change needed—Line 50 aligns with Red Hat's official documentation patterns.

The :latest tag used here matches Red Hat's own documented guidance for registry.redhat.io/offline-knowledge-portal/rhokp-rhel9. Red Hat's official deployment guides use :latest for this image and recommend that users pin to a digest (via podman inspect --format '{{.Digest}}') in their own production environments if reproducibility is critical, rather than hardcoding a version tag in the shared documentation.

			> Likely an incorrect or invalid review comment.

[bparees]

/lgtm

[tisnik]

LGTM