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
application: init webhook #359
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for kurator-dev canceled.
|
Signed-off-by: Xieql <xieqianglong@huawei.com>
@@ -22,10 +22,23 @@ spec: | |||
image: {{ .Values.image.hub }}/fleet-manager:{{ .Values.image.tag }} | |||
imagePullPolicy: {{ .Values.image.pullPolicy }} | |||
name: manager | |||
ports: | |||
- containerPort: 9443 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
why 9443
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am not sure how the code allows customizing webhook-port
while in this manifest it is hardcoding. Can this work?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yes, it has been tested and it works. I refer this:
kurator/manifests/charts/cluster-operator/templates/deployment.yaml
Lines 38 to 40 in 1f80323
- containerPort: 9443 | |
name: webhook-server | |
protocol: TCP |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not very right, if you specify a different via flag
name: webhook-server | ||
protocol: TCP | ||
volumeMounts: | ||
- mountPath: /tmp/k8s-webhook-server/serving-certs |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
same here hardcoding vs allowing customization
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@Xieql Please take a look at the left question
Signed-off-by: Xieql <xieqianglong@huawei.com>
fixed |
Signed-off-by: Xieql <xieqianglong@huawei.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
/lgtm
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: hzxuzhonghu 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 |
/label tide/merge-method-squash |
What type of PR is this?
/kind feature
What this PR does / why we need it:
The Fleet Manager currently lacks a webhook, so this PR introduces one. Currently, it shares the same certificate with the Cluster Operator. A separate certificate can be created, if necessary.
This PR also initializes a validator webhook for the Application.
part of #336
also the relization of #316 , because fleet must be consistent throughout the application when using current validator
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: