Skip to content

📖 Clarify single controller assumption in OLM v1 design #2372

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 4, 2025
Merged

📖 Clarify single controller assumption in OLM v1 design #2372

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion docs/project/olmv1_design_decisions.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ The Kubernetes design assumptions are:
- CRDs and their controllers are trusted cluster extensions.
- If an object for an API exists a controller WILL reconcile it, no matter where it is in the cluster.

OLM v1 will make the same assumption that Kubernetes does and that users of Kubernetes APIs do. That is: If a user has RBAC to create an object in the cluster, they can expect that a controller exists that will reconcile that object. If this assumption does not hold, it will be considered a configuration issue, not an OLM v1 bug.
OLM v1 will make the same assumption that Kubernetes does and that users of Kubernetes APIs do. That is: If a user has RBAC to create an object in the cluster, they can expect that exactly one controller exists that will reconcile that object. If this assumption does not hold, it will be considered a configuration issue, not an OLM v1 bug.
Copy link
Contributor

@grokspawn grokspawn Dec 4, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

For e.g. this kind of scenario.


This means that it is a best practice to implement and configure controllers to have cluster-wide permission to read and update the status of their primary APIs. It does not mean that a controller needs cluster-wide access to read/write secondary APIs. If a controller can update the status of its primary APIs, it can tell users when it lacks permission to act on secondary APIs.

Expand Down