ISSUE-2420 add support for additional fields #63
Conversation
… and retentionPeriodHours
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: sga80 The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
Hi @sga80. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a aws-controllers-k8s member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. 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. |
ack-prow
bot
added
the
needs-ok-to-test
test/e2e/tests/test_stream.py
Outdated
| cr = k8s.get_resource(ref) | ||
| assert cr['status']['conditions'][0]['message'] == "cannot specify KeyID with NONE encryption type" | ||
|
|
||
| # Test the code paths that update encryption type and key ID |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Commented out this code as I didn't want to check in the actual keyId. Is there anyway we still include this test without breaking E2E tests ?
|
@michaelhtm , can you please review? |
|
@michaelhtm , can you please review this PR when you get a chance? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hello @sga80
Thank you for the contribution! We should probably discuss the best approach here.
| @@ -62,7 +62,6 @@ resources: | |||
| operation: DescribeStreamSummary | |||
| path: StreamDescriptionSummary.ConsumerCount | |||
| EncryptionType: | |||
| is_read_only: true | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This approach, although technically correct, is breaking the CRD (removing fields).
Maybe the best thing to do would be to have new fields that go in Spec, and just mirror the ones in status..
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agreed, having a similar field in status should be okay rather than removing from read only.
Issue #2420
Description of changes:
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.