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

Provide a deployment option for disabling the webhooks #1598

Closed
fedepaol opened this issue Sep 7, 2022 · 7 comments · Fixed by #1623
Closed

Provide a deployment option for disabling the webhooks #1598

fedepaol opened this issue Sep 7, 2022 · 7 comments · Fixed by #1623

Comments

@fedepaol
Copy link
Member

fedepaol commented Sep 7, 2022

Given the issues related to validating webhooks can be related to multiple factors (see #1597 and https://hackmd.io/@maelvls/debug-cert-manager-webhook ), it makes sense to offer an option to disable the validating webhooks, to make metallb usable in those scenarios (despite with less checks on the CR creation).

@attiss
Copy link
Contributor

attiss commented Oct 2, 2022

@fedepaol I'd be happy to contribute this. Just to double check: we want to provide a configuration option that controls whether the metallb-webhook-configuration resource is deployed or not, correct?

Do you have any preference regarding the configuration? How about something like this?

crds:
  enabled: true
  validation:
    enabled: true

(crds.validation.enabled would default to true)

@fedepaol
Copy link
Member Author

fedepaol commented Oct 3, 2022

Either that, or an alternative method is to drive the failure policy of the webhook, here.
I'd also try to keep backward compatibility, and as the default behaviour is now to deploy the webhooks, I'd call it "disableWebhooks".

@fedepaol fedepaol assigned fedepaol and unassigned fedepaol Oct 3, 2022
@attiss
Copy link
Contributor

attiss commented Oct 3, 2022

or an alternative method is to drive the failure policy of the webhook

Sounds good to me! If we go this path, how about calling the config option permissiveWebhooks or ignoreWebhookFailures?

@fedepaol
Copy link
Member Author

fedepaol commented Oct 3, 2022

ignoreWebhookFailures sounds a bit too scary :p
How about exporting the policy itself and call it just validationFailurePolicy ?

@attiss
Copy link
Contributor

attiss commented Oct 3, 2022

I can open a PR for this later today, if that's fine with you.

@fedepaol
Copy link
Member Author

fedepaol commented Oct 3, 2022

No rush! Take your time, and thanks for looking into this!

@attiss
Copy link
Contributor

attiss commented Oct 3, 2022

PR opened: #1623

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants