Open
Conversation
added 4 commits
July 25, 2024 21:49
Contributor
Author
|
@rancher/release-team can I get a review on this? |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Problem
When generating patches for a chart with crds we currently copy the crds pulled from upstream back into the main chart which are then included in the main chart patch.
Solution
We can't simply check for
c.Upstream == nilbefore copying since we will not be able to generatevalidate-install-crd.yamlwhenc.CRDOptions.UseTarArchiveistruesince there won't be any crds to generate the validation on. To fix this, we always generate the validation file based on the crds in the generated chart and only copy those crds to the main chart if there is no upstream.Unfortunately we have to unarchive the CRDs whenever we need to generate the validation file, but in my testing this does not affect the runtime much. I think the better separation between the
Prepare,ApplyMainChanges, andRevertMainChangesmakes up for it in terms of readbility. (of course open to disagreement on this point)Issue: #142