Skip to content

WIP: use server-side-apply to update client-ca bundle#1918

Closed
sanchezl wants to merge 1 commit into
openshift:mainfrom
sanchezl:apply-ca-cm
Closed

WIP: use server-side-apply to update client-ca bundle#1918
sanchezl wants to merge 1 commit into
openshift:mainfrom
sanchezl:apply-ca-cm

Conversation

@sanchezl
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@sanchezl sanchezl commented Sep 10, 2025

No description provided.

@openshift-ci openshift-ci Bot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Sep 10, 2025
@openshift-ci
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

openshift-ci Bot commented Sep 10, 2025

Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request.
If you want CI signal for your change, please convert it to an actual PR.
You can still manually trigger a test run with /test all

@coderabbitai
Copy link
Copy Markdown

coderabbitai Bot commented Sep 10, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Important

Review skipped

Auto reviews are limited based on label configuration.

🚫 Review skipped — only excluded labels are configured. (1)
  • do-not-merge/work-in-progress

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

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

@openshift-ci
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

openshift-ci Bot commented Sep 10, 2025

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: sanchezl

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

The pull request process is described here

Details Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

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

@openshift-ci openshift-ci Bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Sep 10, 2025
@sanchezl
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

sanchezl commented Sep 10, 2025

/test e2e-gcp-operator

benluddy
benluddy reviewed Sep 10, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@benluddy benluddy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this fixing an issue? It'd be ideal to have a regression test alongside (I see the PR is marked WIP but I thought I'd ask to better understand the context myself).

Comment thread pkg/operator/targetconfigcontroller/targetconfigcontroller.go
Comment on lines +417 to 423
if (result != nil && result.ResourceVersion == "1") || creationRequired {
// either the configmap was created or we expected it to be created and it failed
resourcehelper.ReportCreateEvent(recorder, caBundleConfigMap, err)
} else {
// an existing configmap was updated, even if we expected it to be created
resourcehelper.ReportUpdateEvent(recorder, caBundleConfigMap, err)
}
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@benluddy benluddy Sep 10, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

IIRC apply responses will have HTTP status 201 if it caused the resource to be created and 200 otherwise. That would be 100% correct for cases where you get a response vs. a prediction based on the cached state.

Comment thread pkg/operator/targetconfigcontroller/targetconfigcontroller.go
Comment on lines +408 to +410
tmp := &metav1.ObjectMeta{}
additionalAnnotations.EnsureTLSMetadataUpdate(tmp)
patch.WithAnnotations(tmp.Annotations)
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@benluddy benluddy Sep 10, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We're likely to make a mistake eventually if we need to keep this in sync with CombineCABundleConfigMapsOptimistically. Can we build the apply configuration purely from requiredConfigMap?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@sanchezl sanchezl Sep 10, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree. I would image we would refactor the helpers to be a more appropriate, but for this POC just 'hacked' it in.

@openshift-ci
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

openshift-ci Bot commented Sep 10, 2025

@sanchezl: 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.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

openshift-bot commented Dec 10, 2025

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.

Mark the issue as fresh by commenting /remove-lifecycle stale.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.
Exclude this issue from closing by commenting /lifecycle frozen.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

/lifecycle stale

@openshift-ci openshift-ci Bot added the lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. label Dec 10, 2025
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

openshift-bot commented Jan 9, 2026

Stale issues rot after 30d of inactivity.

Mark the issue as fresh by commenting /remove-lifecycle rotten.
Rotten issues close after an additional 30d of inactivity.
Exclude this issue from closing by commenting /lifecycle frozen.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

/lifecycle rotten
/remove-lifecycle stale

@openshift-ci openshift-ci Bot added lifecycle/rotten Denotes an issue or PR that has aged beyond stale and will be auto-closed. and removed lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. labels Jan 9, 2026
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

openshift-bot commented Feb 9, 2026

Rotten issues close after 30d of inactivity.

Reopen the issue by commenting /reopen.
Mark the issue as fresh by commenting /remove-lifecycle rotten.
Exclude this issue from closing again by commenting /lifecycle frozen.

/close

@openshift-ci openshift-ci Bot closed this Feb 9, 2026
@openshift-ci
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

openshift-ci Bot commented Feb 9, 2026

@openshift-bot: Closed this PR.

Details

In response to this:

Rotten issues close after 30d of inactivity.

Reopen the issue by commenting /reopen.
Mark the issue as fresh by commenting /remove-lifecycle rotten.
Exclude this issue from closing again by commenting /lifecycle frozen.

/close

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.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@benluddy benluddy benluddy left review comments

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. lifecycle/rotten Denotes an issue or PR that has aged beyond stale and will be auto-closed.

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@sanchezl @openshift-bot @benluddy