-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.4k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Refine what is possible via withRequestConfig #4708
Milestone
Comments
11 tasks
The alternative to
is currently how it's implemented under the covers
The javadocs are incorrect for the newClient method - I'll correct that as part of this issue. It no longer needs to create a fully new instance now that we are passing the augmented requestconfig into the interceptors. |
shawkins
added a commit
to shawkins/kubernetes-client
that referenced
this issue
Feb 6, 2023
also trying to clean up the logic related to how the config is (or not) modified
shawkins
added a commit
to shawkins/kubernetes-client
that referenced
this issue
Feb 6, 2023
also trying to clean up the logic related to how the config is (or not) modified
shawkins
added a commit
to shawkins/kubernetes-client
that referenced
this issue
Feb 6, 2023
also trying to clean up the logic related to how the config is (or not) modified
11 tasks
manusa
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Feb 22, 2023
fix #4708 refining what is possible via the requestconfig
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
The RequestConfig object exposes quite a few timeouts, authentication properties, and other things that we are allowing to be set on a per request basis if one starts with NamespacedKubernetesClient.withRequestConfig.
There are several issues with this:
It would be good to re-assess what about this feature is actually needed, and if it should just be part of the regular dsl - that is instead of client.adapt(NamespacedKubernetesClient.class).withRequestConfig(new RequestConfigBuilder().withImpersonateUsername("name").build()).(c -> ...)
should we just offer
client.withImpersonateUsername("name")...
With methods for whatever seems still useful.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: