-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 226
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
Prevent apply on missing setter value #2377
Comments
We are planning to address this problem as part of input parameters validation. |
@phanimarupaka do we have a bug for that? Might be good to link it here. |
@phanimarupaka input parameter validation would only occur during function execution (i.e. |
@marshall007 The details are not finalized yet. kpt v0.39 does the validation when you trigger |
To add more datapoints, the exact same issue is appearing in GCP KRM blueprints: GoogleCloudPlatform/blueprints#135 A "required" setter value is missing in setters.yaml, however blueprint users won't be able to detect this issue, until they run At this stage, they need to do further troubleshoot, to understand it is because the default value of a setter "platform-project-id" does not work. Considering cluster provision is a relative heavy operation, it will be great if users can at least be hinted of a missing setter value, before they apply the blueprint and have a GKE cluster created. |
Describe your problem
Kpt v0 allowed setters to be marked as
required
, andkpt live apply
would error if the value wasn't set.This feature was useful in situations where a package wouldn't work without the value being set, and where there was no possible default value that would work.
This prevents packages from being accidentally deployed in situations where they wouldn't work.
An example is the
source
setter in this package: https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/gatekeeper-securitycenter/tree/main/manifestsRequest: I'd like kpt v1 to have a mechanism to block packages being applied if they're incomplete.
This isn't a request for deep validation (e.g., "is the source name valid?"), but rather a reminder to package consumers that they've missed a step.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: