Closed rubenvp8510 closed 2 months ago
All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:
Project coverage is 73.36%. Comparing base (
76bfab6
) to head (8b09d44
).
:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
@andreasgerstmayr This PR only verifies if the SA exists or not in order to determine if needs to be recreated. Do you think we need a more sophisticated way to validate this? Because currently our SAs are very simple.
Tested on OCP 4.16
➜ reconcile git:(sa_fix) ✗ oc get pods -n ruben-test
NAME READY STATUS RESTARTS AGE
minio-687794c4f-6g45v 1/1 Running 0 7h25m
tempo-simplest-compactor-7b9cd9d4dd-jn7jg 1/1 Running 0 77s
tempo-simplest-distributor-8584d97bc6-wkcnp 1/1 Running 0 77s
tempo-simplest-ingester-0 1/1 Running 0 77s
tempo-simplest-querier-7fd7d8b76f-nrfcw 1/1 Running 0 77s
tempo-simplest-query-frontend-6c79bbb7d7-96q6c 1/1 Running 0 77s
➜ reconcile git:(sa_fix) ✗ oc get secrets -n ruben-test
NAME TYPE DATA AGE
builder-dockercfg-dcvmn kubernetes.io/dockercfg 1 7h45m
default-dockercfg-mj4wx kubernetes.io/dockercfg 1 7h45m
deployer-dockercfg-h5szn kubernetes.io/dockercfg 1 7h45m
minio-test Opaque 4 7h45m
tempo-simplest-compactor-mtls kubernetes.io/tls 2 21m
tempo-simplest-distributor-mtls kubernetes.io/tls 2 21m
tempo-simplest-dockercfg-xdwgm kubernetes.io/dockercfg 1 21m
tempo-simplest-gateway-mtls kubernetes.io/tls 2 21m
tempo-simplest-ingester-mtls kubernetes.io/tls 2 21m
tempo-simplest-querier-mtls kubernetes.io/tls 2 21m
tempo-simplest-query-frontend-mtls kubernetes.io/tls 2 21m
tempo-simplest-signing-ca kubernetes.io/tls 2 21m
test-sa-dockercfg-5cdlk kubernetes.io/dockercfg 1 3h23m
➜ reconcile git:(sa_fix) ✗
@andreasgerstmayr This PR only verifies if the SA exists or not in order to determine if needs to be recreated. Do you think we need a more sophisticated way to validate this? Because currently our SAs are very simple.
I think for this PR we only need to remove this line: https://github.com/grafana/tempo-operator/blob/76bfab6754344a74a261f9f72d2b4e0c8b6a9674/internal/manifests/mutate.go#L184 then the issue will be resolved if I'm not mistaken.
Or something like https://github.com/grafana/tempo-operator/blob/76bfab6754344a74a261f9f72d2b4e0c8b6a9674/internal/manifests/mutate.go#L172 to be more sophisticated :D
@andreasgerstmayr This PR only verifies if the SA exists or not in order to determine if needs to be recreated. Do you think we need a more sophisticated way to validate this? Because currently our SAs are very simple.
I think for this PR we only need to remove this line:
https://github.com/grafana/tempo-operator/blob/76bfab6754344a74a261f9f72d2b4e0c8b6a9674/internal/manifests/mutate.go#L184 then the issue will be resolved if I'm not mistaken.
Or something like
https://github.com/grafana/tempo-operator/blob/76bfab6754344a74a261f9f72d2b4e0c8b6a9674/internal/manifests/mutate.go#L172 to be more sophisticated :D
Not sure if that will work, I think other things are added to the SA not just the annotation. Anyway I'm gonna check this in the morning. If this simple approach work I don't see why not using it.
Ill switch this solution to use those mutation functions that @andreasgerstmayr is mentioning.
This PR is still rudimentary because it is only for demostrate the problem
@andreasgerstmayr This PR only verifies if the SA exists or not in order to determine if needs to be recreated. Do you think we need a more sophisticated way to validate this? Because currently our SAs are very simple.
I think for this PR we only need to remove this line:
https://github.com/grafana/tempo-operator/blob/76bfab6754344a74a261f9f72d2b4e0c8b6a9674/internal/manifests/mutate.go#L184 then the issue will be resolved if I'm not mistaken.
This did the trick. :)
Or something like
https://github.com/grafana/tempo-operator/blob/76bfab6754344a74a261f9f72d2b4e0c8b6a9674/internal/manifests/mutate.go#L172 to be more sophisticated :D
Fixes https://github.com/grafana/tempo-operator/issues/970