-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.4k
Fix emptyDir sizeLimit handling in our CRDs
#12068
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Fix emptyDir sizeLimit handling in our CRDs
#12068
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Jakub Scholz <[email protected]>
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #12068 +/- ##
============================================
+ Coverage 74.78% 74.79% +0.01%
- Complexity 6614 6618 +4
============================================
Files 376 376
Lines 25325 25329 +4
Branches 3389 3391 +2
============================================
+ Hits 18939 18945 +6
Misses 4998 4998
+ Partials 1388 1386 -2
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
|
/gha run pipeline=regression |
|
⏳ System test verification started: link The following 6 job(s) will be executed:
Tests will start after successful build completion. |
|
🎉 System test verification passed: link |
|
Trying to understanding the issue better.
So it looks the Can you clarify a bit the above, please? |
Type of change
Description
#12067 describes a pretty nasty bug in our CRDs. The additional volumes in the Pod template use the native Fabric8
EmptyDirVolumeSourceclass in the API model. However, this class relies on the Fabric8Quantityclass and this class has a structure that our CRDs cannot handle. As a result:This PR creates our own model class to replace the Fabric8
EmptyDirVolumeSource. It does not useQuantity(similarly to our storage configuration) and makes sure the CRDs use the correct layout and Strimzi can handle it.However, strictly speaking, this breaks the compatibility of the API. Given that it:
I think it might be ok to do this. But there is some extent of risk worth considering during the review.
This should resolve #12067
Checklist