Skip to content

Conversation

@wking
Copy link
Member

@wking wking commented Apr 8, 2021

This wasn't covered when ClusterRole reconciliation landed in 697cbf6 (#10), but the property existed even back then:

$ git grep -A20 'type ClusterRole struct' 697cbf6370 | grep '[-][[:space:]]Aggrega
tionRule'
697cbf6370:vendor/k8s.io/api/rbac/v1/types.go-  AggregationRule *AggregationRule `json:"aggregationRule,omitempty" protobuf:"bytes,3,opt,name=aggregationRule"`
697cbf6370:vendor/k8s.io/api/rbac/v1alpha1/types.go-    AggregationRule *AggregationRule `json:"aggregationRule,omitempty" protobuf:"bytes,3,opt,name=aggregationRule"`
697cbf6370:vendor/k8s.io/api/rbac/v1beta1/types.go-     AggregationRule *AggregationRule `json:"aggregationRule,omitempty" protobuf:"bytes,3,opt,name=aggregationRule"`

and now folks want to use aggregationRule for something: openshift/machine-api-operator#795.

This wasn't covered when ClusterRole reconciliation landed in
697cbf6 (lib: update resource{read,merge,apply} to add new objects,
2018-08-20, openshift#10), but the property existed even back then:

  $ git grep -A20 'type ClusterRole struct' 697cbf6 | grep '[-][[:space:]]Aggrega
  tionRule'
  697cbf6:vendor/k8s.io/api/rbac/v1/types.go-  AggregationRule *AggregationRule `json:"aggregationRule,omitempty" protobuf:"bytes,3,opt,name=aggregationRule"`
  697cbf6:vendor/k8s.io/api/rbac/v1alpha1/types.go-    AggregationRule *AggregationRule `json:"aggregationRule,omitempty" protobuf:"bytes,3,opt,name=aggregationRule"`
  697cbf6:vendor/k8s.io/api/rbac/v1beta1/types.go-     AggregationRule *AggregationRule `json:"aggregationRule,omitempty" protobuf:"bytes,3,opt,name=aggregationRule"`

and now folks want to use aggregationRule for something [1].

[1]: openshift/machine-api-operator#795
@wking wking force-pushed the sync-cluster-role-aggregationRule branch from 4f7d84e to 8b5c8b8 Compare April 8, 2021 15:06
Copy link
Contributor

@JoelSpeed JoelSpeed left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. labels Apr 8, 2021
Copy link
Member

@LalatenduMohanty LalatenduMohanty left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: JoelSpeed, LalatenduMohanty, wking

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:
  • OWNERS [LalatenduMohanty,wking]

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

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit 77a24f7 into openshift:master Apr 8, 2021
@wking wking deleted the sync-cluster-role-aggregationRule branch April 8, 2021 23:45
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants