-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 520
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
Adding tags to accessPointsOptions #689
Adding tags to accessPointsOptions #689
Conversation
Hi @jonathanrainer. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. 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/test-infra repository. |
602c216
to
6e2c875
Compare
Tested this on an EKS cluster just to ensure it was all working, configured everything as per the Dynamic Provisioning example and got the following tags on the access point: These are exactly as specified in #596 |
ed460f9
to
f5d3899
Compare
f5d3899
to
4792642
Compare
4792642
to
4a204ee
Compare
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs. This bot triages issues and PRs according to the following rules:
You can:
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community. /lifecycle stale |
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs. This bot triages issues and PRs according to the following rules:
You can:
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community. /lifecycle rotten |
4a204ee
to
0f05633
Compare
/remove-lifecycle rotten |
@Ashley-wenyizha Could we get an ok to test here? I think this change is fairly uncontroversial |
0f05633
to
ecc0648
Compare
/ok-to-test |
kind ping. Can we merge this? |
ecc0648
to
bb421f0
Compare
any news in this topic? We have multitenant kubernetes clusters and would need this for our chargebacks. |
bb421f0
to
de0f97a
Compare
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: jonathanrainer, rwe The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
PR needs rebase. 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/test-infra repository. |
@jonathanrainer please can you rebase? |
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all PRs. This bot triages PRs according to the following rules:
You can:
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community. /lifecycle stale |
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all PRs. This bot triages PRs according to the following rules:
You can:
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community. /lifecycle rotten |
@jonathanrainer are you still working on this? We just identified that this feature would be very useful for us when performing a disaster recovery of both EKS & EFS. @Ashley-wenyizha we could probably fork the work done by Jonathan and provide another, dedicated PR for it. WDYT? |
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs. This bot triages PRs according to the following rules:
You can:
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community. /close |
@k8s-triage-robot: Closed this PR. In response to this:
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/test-infra repository. |
Is this a bug fix or adding new feature?
This is a very small new feature, just adding some tags into the Access Point Creation
What is this PR about? / Why do we need it?
As per #596 we want to add the tags for the PV name, PVC name and namespace to the created access point. This PR simply adds these tags, very much based on the code in #349
What testing is done?
#349 was tested against an EKS cluster and the code is identical, plus all unit tests still pass and E2E tests will run as part of this PR
fixes #596