-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 68
🐛 re-add apiservice volume/mounts to operator deployment #2107
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
🐛 re-add apiservice volume/mounts to operator deployment #2107
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for olmv1 ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
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
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
7607345 to
470a81f
Compare
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| // if they do not exist, they will be created | ||
| //{ |
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.
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.
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.
No problem. The intention here was to illustrate what doesn't exist. But if it wasn't understood that way, I'll remove it.
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.
Also these are unit tests - but your point still stands
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.
Done
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 think we could not merge commented code right?
thank you for get it done
470a81f to
cefeb68
Compare
Signed-off-by: Per Goncalves da Silva <[email protected]>
cefeb68 to
775fd6a
Compare
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.
It seems fine for me 👍
|
[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 |
5f5142d
into
operator-framework:main
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