This repository has been archived by the owner on Dec 21, 2021. It is now read-only.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
[DDO-1292] Rawls Liquibase Migration Pre-sync Job #387
[DDO-1292] Rawls Liquibase Migration Pre-sync Job #387
Changes from 25 commits
39db818
92a77c8
1af9322
0d4848d
f581aee
cd23d17
808c616
d25b2fa
46c3e64
26a39b8
23f17db
76c2d67
7fa6fbc
0c4cd87
7154600
a9f6786
578b5ad
67ad053
93c6348
2bc9e75
8d086c6
48407c5
d3f562f
d9a1b08
1baf129
c0b105f
77588ea
12a09f8
fc61125
c96ba52
b4b586b
4348a39
7d48165
e39fd66
7c85941
abe0064
fa53069
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
Do we need separate RBAC resources for this job? I think the permissions will be very similar to whatever the Rawls application uses. (Apologies if there's already been some background discussion here that I missed!)
Seems like we could add PreSync to the existing resources to make sure they exist when the job is run, but not delete them before every sync?
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.
We don't strictly need separate RBAC, but we do need them to exist, and unfortunately: argoproj/argo-cd#3502 (comment)
Despite the clutter that this involves (#387 (comment)) I don't know of a better solution
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.
Does this comment offer a viable workaround? argoproj/argo-cd#3502 (comment)
I.e.
If that won't work, I'm fine with duplicating the RBAC resources!
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 hadn't seen that, that's a good idea. I'd talked to Mike and just now put the RBAC stuff behind a flag so the job can reuse the existing one. I think the only downside to leaning on sync waves is that the normal rbac resources would need to have that sort of migration-specific attribute, but that's a small downside imo. Let's chat at standup
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.
This worked!