-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 576
no-jira: Validate AWS resource tag keys with aws: prefix #2183
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
Open
patrickdillon
wants to merge
4
commits into
openshift:master
Choose a base branch
from
patrickdillon:aws-tag-prefix
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
e5aa2b8
Validate aws resource tag keys with aws prefix & immutable
patrickdillon 0eddb96
Generate CRDs: for AWS prefix validation
patrickdillon 40d7615
Regenerate CRDS
patrickdillon d582954
refactor validation and add ratcheting validation
patrickdillon File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
Please also add a ratcheting test (see readme in the tests dir) to prove that existing values are not affected by this change. You should show that
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.
Ok, I added the ratcheting validation tests, but am stuck on the first one (the other two work ok). In order to allow existing bad values, I updated the validation in 34f8d72 but apparently this is invalid, as the tests fail with:
I see in these k8s docs that this means the rule cannot be applied:
I'm not sure how to resolve this issue. Any insight?
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.
@JoelSpeed claude helped me figure out that I needed to change ResourceTags to listType=map, but now the actual validation of the aws: prefix does not seem to be working
Stuck on this.
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.
I went ahead and side-stepped the issue by validating for immutability. IMHO that makes more sense, as post-install updates are not supported. On the other hand, I'm not sure if there are issues with making a field immutable post-GA; the intention was always for these fields to be immutable, it just wasn't validated.
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.
We still need a ratcheting test to show that anyone who already has a value with
aws:in the prefix won't be broken by this changeUh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
Oh right, that makes sense: so we don't brick the rest of the aws platform status from being updated. Because I made resourceTags immutable, we can't cover the three expected cases in your original message. Does the check added in d582954 look good/sufficient? Or what else would you have in mind.
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, that covers it, thanks