-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29
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
Fix description for same/notSameLabels; remove NamespaceRelation #75
Fix description for same/notSameLabels; remove NamespaceRelation #75
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for kubernetes-sigs-network-policy-api ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site settings. |
4cbf470
to
86f070a
Compare
86f070a
to
c69c48b
Compare
woops need to fix the verify |
Maybe we can follow the |
You should look at the user stories to see what functionality is needed, but I think the intention was that Related: |
In that case I think the peer will always evaluate to an empty one, because if the subject's Namespace does not even have the label "x", we have no ground for deducing what Namespaces have the same labels at all |
I think in case subject doesn't have a label set, I would logically expect Another tricky part is how to define multiple labels. I guess we understand same labels like |
+1 no peers will match that. |
yes this is what I am going with similar to what @Dyanngg said
This is debatable on which way to go... by label not being set you mean a nil value right? but the key must exist, we don't want to assume a match on things that don't have keys set - notIn also seems to match on different values of the same key. |
e12802b
to
f27df9b
Compare
I agree with Yang here
So yeah the use cases are vague here, essentially we just want to make designing tenants simple.... however I think it makes most sense to ensure that notSameLabels is the exact inverse of sameLabels. i.e
Should be
|
Blocking #90 |
@astoycos : Yes let me update this with the suggestions, (was on PTO the last week for a few days saw the ping only now) |
See kubernetes-sigs#45 (comment) for details. Signed-off-by: Surya Seetharaman <suryaseetharaman.9@gmail.com>
f27df9b
to
2a9aa3d
Compare
/lgtm Thanks @tssurya |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: astoycos, tssurya The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
Closes #45 (comment). See #45 (comment) for details.
This PR is removing
Related
field. TODO: Add docs to show how this can be achieved using same/notSame Labels.In addition to that we are trying to clarify the meaning of same/notSame labels.