Fix: Version checking for disable vs no-deploy flag

brandtkeller commented 1 year ago

Signed-off-by: Brandt Keller brandt.keller@defenseunicorns.com

Are you a GitHub Sponsor?

No

Only sponsors may Pull Requests (PRs), all other PRs (unless previously discussed agreed upon with a maintainer) will be closed without comment.

Check at https://github.com/sponsors/alexellis

Why do you need this?

The use of --no-extras is currently broken - as --no-deploy now throws a fatal error due to deprecation in v1.17.4+k3s1.

This essentially duplicates some of the work done on https://github.com/alexellis/k3sup/pull/394 - but due to responses and some additionally required error checking for maximum compatibility - I wanted to submit another version.

Open to collaborating with others and any feedback.

[x] I have raised an issue to propose this change (required)

https://github.com/alexellis/k3sup/issues/396

If you have no approval from a maintainer, close this PR and raise an issue.

Description

Simple conditional for --no-extras to establish a default scenario and then a quick version check to look for a specified --k3s-version < v1.17.4+k3s1 where I believe--no-deploy was first deprecated in favor of --disable.

How Has This Been Tested?

Tested through the manual execution with --k3s-version specified to ensure versions < v1.17.4+k3s1 use --no-deploy and all versions >= v1.17.4+k3s1 use --disable

Working on understanding the testing more - as some of the testing would require some specific configurations to the target (such as older cgroups implementations).

Types of changes

[x] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
[ ] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
[ ] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)

Checklist:

[ ] My code follows the code style of this project.
[ ] My change requires a change to the documentation.
[ ] I have updated the documentation accordingly.
[x] I've read the CONTRIBUTION guide
[x] I have signed-off my commits with git commit -s
[ ] I have added tests to cover my changes.
[ ] All new and existing tests passed.

brandtkeller commented 1 year ago

Any thoughts @alexellis? Really enjoy the tool and want to keep it functioning.

alexellis commented 1 year ago

My thoughts are that many people use K3sup and find it "valuable" without sponsoring me. And let's face it, the amount asked for on my profile is nothing compared to the cost of the time I've spent building it so far and will need to take to continue to maintain it for changes like this.

If defenseunicorns.com is productising my open source work, they can pay me for my time and attention.

Alex

Edit: after Defense Unicorns and friends stated they have never used any of my open source projects publicly, a friend after seeing the thread did some research and sent me these links:

DN6s1AXT

brandtkeller commented 1 year ago

My thoughts are that many people use K3sup and find it "valuable" without sponsoring me. And let's face it, the amount asked for on my profile is nothing compared to the cost of the time I've spent building it so far and will need to take to continue to maintain it for changes like this.

If defenseunicorns.com is productising my open source work, they can pay me for my time and attention.

Alex

I understand the sentiment - that said, this interest is solely my own and k3sup is not being "productised" at Defense Unicorns to my knowledge. Rather I used it for hobby-related projects outside of any professional capacity.

alexellis commented 1 year ago

Given recent comments, let me be clear:

The fix requested has been merged and released. The underlying change was merged in https://github.com/alexellis/k3sup/commit/02c7a775b9914b9dcf3b90fa7935eb347b7979e7
The PR and Issue template both state that a GitHub sponsorship needs to be made before requesting support with an Issue or PR:

This was ignored and deleted without comment from the PR template when the PR was raised.

alexellis / k3sup