Create the in-memory-channel ClusterProvisioner#484
Conversation
|
I would call this in-memory channel |
Done. |
scothis
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
not done reviewing, but wanted to add comments so far
| return nil | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| err := r.createDispatcherService(ctx, cp) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why dynamically create a service that is effectively a singleton when it could easily be part of the provisioner config yaml instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A few revisions back, this controller would work on multiple in-memory ClusterProvisioners (e.g. in-memory-channel-foo, in-memory-channel-bar). In that world it made more sense to create the Service dynamically.
The current revision dropped that ability, so this is vestigial. I'm trying to decide if I want to support multiple provisioners, thoughts? If we end up not wanting to support multiple provisioners this will likely get removed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I vote remove this controller in favor of installing a service on deployment/install of the provisioner.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I used this commit. And when applying the altered in-memory-channel.yaml, I got:
error: error validating "STDIN": error validating data:
ValidationError(Service.metadata.ownerReferences[0]): missing required field "uid" in
io.k8s.apimachinery.pkg.apis.meta.v1.OwnerReference; if you choose to ignore these errors, turn
validation off with --validate=false
2018/10/11 11:17:28 error executing "kubectl apply": exit status 1
If we want to make the K8s Service unowned, then we can switch to doing it via YAML. I prefer to have the owner reference and thus have the Controller make the K8s Service. Thoughts?
|
/cc @n3wscott |
n3wscott
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Quite a bit of cleanup work to do and I got lost on the multi-channel and swappable handlers. maybe you can give more details on what those are?
|
omgomgomgomg I can't wait to see this rebased 💃 |
e010d6d to
fd0efd4
Compare
|
PTAL, I think I have addressed all the comments. |
|
The following is the coverage report on pkg/.
|
|
/lgtm |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: adamharwayne, vaikas-google The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
/lgtm |
Note that this PR is dependent on #435, which adds all the sidecar code. Any comments about the sidecar should be made on that PR instead.
Fixes #439, #440
Proposed Changes
Release Note