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
Bug 1954330: ingress: Fix up openshift-ingress namespace reconciliation #611
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
To my thinking, the names were fine before:
routerNamespaceChanged
has parameterscurrent
andexpected
, and its logic copiescurrent
and updates it usingexpected
. In actual use,current
is the object that's in the API, andexpected
is the new desired object, which mutates the current API object based on some update (changes to the ingresscontroller, or changes to the operator itself as in the case of these new annotations and labels). I don't think the order really matters here though.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.
Right, the only caveat being in the case of the ingress namespace resource, desired is effectively
manifests.RouterNamespace
. I think that's where the prior naming was throwing me off.If you don't mind, I would prefer to use the new naming and ordering in this PR, since IMO, it makes the test added in this PR simpler.