fix(grafana): track events for all owned resources#2299
Merged
Conversation
weisdd
requested review from
Baarsgaard,
hubeadmin,
ishanjainn,
nissessenap,
pb82 and
theSuess
as code owners
weisdd
changed the title
weisdd
changed the title
Baarsgaard
approved these changes
Nov 15, 2025
Collaborator
Baarsgaard
left a comment
Baarsgaard
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is great to finally have!
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
PersistentVolumeClaim: nothing useful in status, so status updates are ignored (API reference);Secret: no status;Service: nothing useful in status as we care only about clusterIP(s), so status updates are ignored (API reference);ServiceAccount: no status;Ingress: the status gets updated with an IP address of an ingress-controller. On one hand, if the grafana-controller gets notified about the change, the reconciliation will be faster for those users who rely on thepreferIngresssetting, on the other - it's probably not worth having a second reconciliation upon status updates for everyone aspreferIngressis unlikely to be very popular (API reference);Route: same concern as forIngress, so status updates are ignored as well (API reference).