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
BUILD-159: add projected share resource csi driver operator to the list managed by the CSO #952
BUILD-159: add projected share resource csi driver operator to the list managed by the CSO #952
Conversation
OK everything is green ... interesting. Moving forward. /assign @jsafrane PTAL ... my early testing in trying to construct a CSO managed operator for the projected shared resource CSI driver is that I need these updates vendored into openshift/apiserver in order to mirror the build and run locally instructions articulated at https://github.com/openshift/gcp-pd-csi-driver-operator#quick-start without this, even with CVO and CSO disabled, I get
|
ManilaCSIDriver CSIDriverName = "manila.csi.openstack.org" | ||
OvirtCSIDriver CSIDriverName = "csi.ovirt.org" | ||
KubevirtCSIDriver CSIDriverName = "csi.kubevirt.io" | ||
AWSEBSCSIDriver CSIDriverName = "ebs.csi.aws.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.
@jsafrane - per the comment on line 41, I see you removed use of the kubebuilder:validation:Enum
directive for the CSIDriverName
type with #718
Hence, the manual update of both 000_90... yaml files
Now, I did try in my local copy of this branch adding that directive back, and after undoing the change to the crd yam (but not the patch yaml) a make update
did add my new driver to the crd yaml
I take your #718 (comment) as meaning the removal of the kubebuilder comment for CSIDriverName was intentional.
Anyway, it seems to me if we leave things as is, the comment saying update kubebuilder:validation:Enum should be changed, since that directive is no longer specified.
Or would you like me to add it back?
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, the comment is wrong, there is no kubebuilder:validation:Enum
now. Can you please remove the comment?
If I remember correctly, a patch was the only way to add validation of metadata.name
.
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.
yep I'll update the comment ... fighting a few fires this AM, but hopefully will still circle back to this today
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.
mention of kubebuilder Enum in the comment removed @jsafrane
6b0a5c6
to
592fb86
Compare
/assign @bparees need an OWNERS approve to sign off on this next step in installing via the cluster storage operator the projected resource csi driver we are going to use to mount entitlement secrets in build without having to copy the secret to the same namespace as the build. |
/approve |
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.
Some necessary bike-shedding on the name
@@ -13,3 +13,4 @@ | |||
- manila.csi.openstack.org | |||
- csi.ovirt.org | |||
- csi.kubevirt.io | |||
- csi.projected.shared.resources.openshift.io |
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.
Is this the name we want? I'd think one of the following would be better:
csi.projected-resources.openshift.io
csi.shared-resources.openshift.io
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.
So none of the other names I hyphens, so I was not comfortable introducing that pattern, though I thought of it. So unless @jsafrane says it is OK, I disagree there.
Of the two reduced versions you have, and losing hyphens, I like csi.shared.resources.openshift.io
better.
You good with that @adambkaplan or are do you want to hold out for the hyphens being blessed?
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.
These are ultimately used as the name for a k8s CSIDriver object, which at worst requires us to meet the DNS Label requirement [1]. Hyphens in the middle are OK.
Let's go with csi.shared-resources.openshift.io
.
https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/overview/working-with-objects/names/#dns-label-names
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.
since this is a product-facing name, does @smarterclayton need to sign off?
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.
updated @adambkaplan
@@ -46,6 +46,7 @@ spec: | |||
- manila.csi.openstack.org | |||
- csi.ovirt.org | |||
- csi.kubevirt.io | |||
- csi.projected.shared.resources.openshift.io |
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.
ditto
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.
updated
ManilaCSIDriver CSIDriverName = "manila.csi.openstack.org" | ||
OvirtCSIDriver CSIDriverName = "csi.ovirt.org" | ||
KubevirtCSIDriver CSIDriverName = "csi.kubevirt.io" | ||
ProjectedSharedResourceCSIDriver CSIDriverName = "csi.projected.shared.resources.openshift.io" |
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.
ditto
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.
updated
592fb86
to
5bf387a
Compare
08107d9
to
32d62d0
Compare
your suggested commit has been pulled in @adambkaplan and commits have been squashed |
32d62d0
to
1048cce
Compare
Just to be sure, is |
Thanks for the pointer @jsafrane Yep I'll need to update our new shared resources CSO operator repo and the existing csi driver repo to make sure things line up with the name @adambkaplan has directed me to before we connect the dots and install via the CSO. |
/lgtm |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: bparees, gabemontero, jsafrane 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 |
make update
etc. is behaving weird for me today ... I think my upgrading controller-gen for v0.5 for tekton has introduced formatting differences.initially submitting with WIP and with any
make update
changes to see exactly how the verify job fails, and then see if I can split the differenceor I may have to maintain 2 versions of controller-gen