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

PipelineRun should directly support per TaskRun runtime settings #2362

Closed
skaegi opened this issue Apr 9, 2020 · 6 comments
Closed

PipelineRun should directly support per TaskRun runtime settings #2362

skaegi opened this issue Apr 9, 2020 · 6 comments
Labels
kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature.

Comments

@skaegi
Copy link
Contributor

skaegi commented Apr 9, 2020

PipelineRun's currently let us set a serviceAccount and podTemplate that is copied down to all child TaskRuns. We added serviceAccountNames as a per task mapping, but I can see now we are likely to need the same thing for podTemplates to handle variations on things like imagePullSecret, runtimeClass, nodeSelector etc.

What I'd suggest is that we have a tasks property in PipelineRun that to start contains 'serviceAccountNameandpodTemplate`.

e.g.

apiVersion: tekton.dev/v1beta1
kind: PipelineRun
metadata:
  name: my-pipeline-run
spec:
  ...
  serviceAccountName: basic
  podTemplate: {...some useful settings}
  tasks:
    - name: myTask1
      serviceAccountName: xyzzy
      podTemplate: {} # empty
    - name: myTask3
      serviceAccountName: abc

All TaskRuns use the top-level serviceAccountName and podTemplate unless over-ridden in the per task mappings. For serviceAccountNames we could either eventually deprecate it or support it forever.

@vdemeester
Copy link
Member

/kind feature

@tekton-robot tekton-robot added the kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature. label Apr 9, 2020
@NikeNano
Copy link

NikeNano commented Apr 9, 2020

I would be happy to work on this!

@NikeNano
Copy link

I start on a PR in the mean time, hope that is fine :)

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented May 27, 2020

Now that #2389 is merged, can we close this issue? Or is there more work to do here?

@vdemeester
Copy link
Member

I think so yes !
/close

@tekton-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

@vdemeester: Closing this issue.

In response to this:

I think so yes !
/close

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants