Skip to content

Conversation

@perdasilva
Copy link
Contributor

Description

In a previous PR I erroneously removed the mounting of the apiservice certificate. This actually broke webhook support.
This PR brings those changes back to the webhook renderer. Now we ensure that both the apiservice and webhook cert volume/mounts are correctly set in the deployment (this is also more inline with what v0 was doing).

Reviewer Checklist

  • API Go Documentation
  • Tests: Unit Tests (and E2E Tests, if appropriate)
  • Comprehensive Commit Messages
  • Links to related GitHub Issue(s)

@perdasilva perdasilva requested a review from a team as a code owner July 17, 2025 07:53
@netlify
Copy link

netlify bot commented Jul 17, 2025

Deploy Preview for olmv1 ready!

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit 775fd6a
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/projects/olmv1/deploys/6878e7e29e091a0008737f80
😎 Deploy Preview https://deploy-preview-2107--olmv1.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile
Toggle QR Code...

QR Code

Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration.

@perdasilva perdasilva changed the title 🐛 Fix webhook certificate bug 🐛 re-add apiservice volume/mounts to operator deployment Jul 17, 2025
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 17, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 73.52%. Comparing base (850e4a1) to head (775fd6a).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2107      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   73.49%   73.52%   +0.03%     
==========================================
  Files          78       78              
  Lines        7240     7260      +20     
==========================================
+ Hits         5321     5338      +17     
- Misses       1567     1569       +2     
- Partials      352      353       +1     
Flag Coverage Δ
e2e 43.72% <0.00%> (-0.14%) ⬇️
experimental-e2e 49.90% <0.00%> (-0.16%) ⬇️
unit 58.88% <100.00%> (+0.11%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@perdasilva perdasilva force-pushed the webhook-cert-bugfix branch from 7607345 to 470a81f Compare July 17, 2025 11:07
},
},
// if they do not exist, they will be created
//{
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could we avoid merging code that still has commented-out sections?

Also, I know we’re not fully there yet, but that’s why I’m really pushing for us to have clean, maintainable, and easy-to-understand e2e tests. These kinds of issues should be caught by them.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No problem. The intention here was to illustrate what doesn't exist. But if it wasn't understood that way, I'll remove it.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@perdasilva perdasilva Jul 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Also these are unit tests - but your point still stands

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we could not merge commented code right?
thank you for get it done

Signed-off-by: Per Goncalves da Silva <[email protected]>
@perdasilva perdasilva force-pushed the webhook-cert-bugfix branch from cefeb68 to 775fd6a Compare July 17, 2025 12:09
Copy link
Contributor

@camilamacedo86 camilamacedo86 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It seems fine for me 👍

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jul 17, 2025
@openshift-ci
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Jul 17, 2025

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: camilamacedo86

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Jul 17, 2025
@openshift-merge-bot openshift-merge-bot bot merged commit 5f5142d into operator-framework:main Jul 17, 2025
22 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants