Closed rubenvp8510 closed 1 month ago
Attention: Patch coverage is 33.33333%
with 16 lines
in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
Project coverage is 73.22%. Comparing base (
e122de4
) to head (88ea2e2
).
Files | Patch % | Lines |
---|---|---|
internal/manifests/distributor/distributor.go | 34.78% | 13 Missing and 2 partials :warning: |
internal/webhooks/tempostack_webhook.go | 0.00% | 0 Missing and 1 partial :warning: |
:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
@pavolloffay Should we make TLS enable by default on OpenShift? following the principle of "making secure by default"?
Do you mean using servicing certs on the Gateway public HTTTP and gRPC APIs (the users would need to use the service CA)?
Do you mean using servicing certs on the Gateway public HTTTP and gRPC APIs (the users would need to use the service CA)?
I don't understand well the question. From what I can see the gateway case is already implemented. This PR what it does is to use the service CA for the case when the gateway is not enabled. This means configure the distributor to use it directly (without the gateway)
How are we going to expose this in the monolithic CR? It would be great to come up with a similar config. Do you have CRD draft?
How are we going to expose this in the monolithic CR? It would be great to come up with a similar config. Do you have CRD draft?
I don't have a draft, but I would say we can apply the same, if TLS is enabled but not certName is specified AND we are on openshift. we can use the service Certificate.
… disabled
Fixes https://github.com/grafana/tempo-operator/issues/963
This PR doesn't cover monolitic. I would prefer to do it in a separate PR. in this way I can keep this PR small and move forward faster.