feat: Sync annotation unmarshaling in gator#2734
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Anlan Du <adu47249@gmail.com>
f0fb385 to
ec6a457
Compare
Codecov ReportPatch coverage:
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #2734 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 53.46% 53.53% +0.06%
==========================================
Files 127 128 +1
Lines 11373 11408 +35
==========================================
+ Hits 6081 6107 +26
- Misses 4817 4824 +7
- Partials 475 477 +2
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Plz remove unneeded text and include a link to the doc. Or perhaps we need a meta-issue to link all the work to. |
| @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@ | |||
| package reader | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Overall generally LGTM but needs unit tests.
Some things we should test:
- converting a "compact representation" to an "expended representation". The pure function will make this test clearer.
- converting actual text on a fake template into a full SyncRequirements
- Some error scenarios where the annotation is malformed (someone's bound to mess up the formatting, particularly if the annotation picks up steam in the community)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks! Added tests--I think adding tests for ExpandCompactRequirements would be pretty redundant but lmk what you think
Signed-off-by: Anlan Du <adu47249@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Anlan Du <adu47249@gmail.com>
5bf981e to
6f20882
Compare
Signed-off-by: Anlan Du <adu47249@gmail.com>
44f9bb7 to
1968f4c
Compare
Signed-off-by: Anlan Du <adu47249@gmail.com>
acpana
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This LGTM for now, thanks for working on this!
I'd love to see this being used in gator to either generate SyncSets (probably going to happen later) or validate that a (constraint_template, constraint, config object) tuple satisfies the requirements. This could help iron out any kinks and provide immediate value to gator users.
maxsmythe
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM! Sorry for the slow review cycle
6d029ce to
0998847
Compare
Signed-off-by: Anlan Du <adu47249@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Sertaç Özercan <852750+sozercan@users.noreply.github.com> Signed-off-by: Anlan Du <adu47249@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Sertaç Özercan <852750+sozercan@users.noreply.github.com> Signed-off-by: Anlan Du <adu47249@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Anlan Du <adu47249@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Sertaç Özercan <852750+sozercan@users.noreply.github.com> Signed-off-by: Hy3n4 <hy3nk4@gmail.com>
In open-policy-agent/gatekeeper#2734 (comment) the decision was made to change the sync data anotation casing from `requiresSyncData` to `requires-sync-data`. This better fits k8s standards. This PR updates gatekeeper-library templates with the new annotation key. Signed-off-by: juliankatz <juliankatz@google.com>
What this PR does / why we need it:
Enables unmarshaling of the sync annotation into a struct
Design Doc
Special notes for your reviewer: