Skip to content
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

kubelet: add unit tests for imagePullSecrets keyring #94974

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 23, 2020

Conversation

andrewsykim
Copy link
Member

Signed-off-by: Andrew Sy Kim kim.andrewsy@gmail.com

What type of PR is this?
/kind cleanup

What this PR does / why we need it:
Add unit tests for generating kubelet's docker keyring for imagePullSecrets.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

NONE

Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.:


@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. kind/cleanup Categorizes issue or PR as related to cleaning up code, process, or technical debt. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. needs-sig Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `sig/foo` label and requires one. needs-priority Indicates a PR lacks a `priority/foo` label and requires one. labels Sep 22, 2020
@andrewsykim
Copy link
Member Author

/assign @derekwaynecarr @dchen1107 @liggitt
/sig node

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added sig/node Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Node. and removed needs-sig Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `sig/foo` label and requires one. labels Sep 22, 2020
found: false,
},
{
name: "with pull secrets and has default keyring",
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

what happens with default keyring and DockerConfigJsonKey or DockerConfigKey that doesn't match the given image?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

In this test case specifically, the default keyring would always return auth configs since the fake Lookup() call returns hardcoded auth configs. If we used a real keyring it would not return any auth configs if the image didn't match based on the check here:

// both k and image are schemeless URLs because even though schemes are allowed
// in the credential configurations, we remove them in Add.
if matched, _ := urlsMatchStr(k, image); matched {
ret = append(ret, dk.creds[k]...)
}

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I was mostly looking for a test that exercised whether we fell back to the default or not for a DockerConfigJsonKey or DockerConfigKey that doesn't match the given image

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ah, good point. Updated to include tests that only return credentials from the default keyring if DockerConfigJsonKey or DockerConfigKey didn't have a matching image URL passed into Lookup.

@andrewsykim andrewsykim changed the title kubelet: add unit tests for generating Secrets based docker keyring kubelet: add unit tests for imagePullSecrets keyring Sep 23, 2020
Signed-off-by: Andrew Sy Kim <kim.andrewsy@gmail.com>
@liggitt
Copy link
Member

liggitt commented Sep 23, 2020

/lgtm
/approve

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Sep 23, 2020
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: andrewsykim, liggitt

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

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Sep 23, 2020
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit c0d0baf into kubernetes:master Sep 23, 2020
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added this to the v1.20 milestone Sep 23, 2020
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. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. kind/cleanup Categorizes issue or PR as related to cleaning up code, process, or technical debt. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. needs-priority Indicates a PR lacks a `priority/foo` label and requires one. release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. sig/node Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Node. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants