Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Potential for resource name conflicts #171

Open
uhthomas opened this issue May 10, 2024 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #185
Open

Potential for resource name conflicts #171

uhthomas opened this issue May 10, 2024 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #185

Comments

@uhthomas
Copy link
Collaborator

Describe the bug

The resource names are simply the name of the WireGuard resource, sometimes with a suffix like -dep, or -config which can easily lead to conflicts.

❯ k get secret -lapp=wireguard
NAME           TYPE     DATA   AGE
media          Opaque   3      6m34s
media-client   Opaque   2      6m34s
❯ k get deploy -lapp=wireguard
NAME        READY   UP-TO-DATE   AVAILABLE   AGE
media-dep   0/1     0            0           6m39s
❯ k get svc -lapp=wireguard
NAME                TYPE           CLUSTER-IP       EXTERNAL-IP      PORT(S)           AGE
media-metrics-svc   ClusterIP      10.104.128.120   <none>           9586/TCP          6m43s
media-svc           LoadBalancer   10.106.235.249   192.168.135.12   51820:32595/UDP   6m43s
❯ k get cm -lapp=wireguard
NAME           DATA   AGE
media-config   0      6m47s

To Reproduce

N/A

Expected behavior

Use unique names, like other controllers do.

❯ k -n tailscale get sts
NAME                               READY   AGE
ts-bazarr-gp98g                    1/1     186d
❯ k get rs
NAME                  DESIRED   CURRENT   READY   AGE
media-dep-878876c8d   1         0         0       8m20s

Screenshots

N/A

Additional context

N/A
@jodevsa jodevsa linked a pull request Jul 3, 2024 that will close this issue
Open
@jodevsa
Copy link
Owner

jodevsa commented Jul 7, 2024

finished implementing this in #185; I litralley re-wrote the whole controller logic and finally we have some proper code that is decoupled

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

chore: refactor controller jodevsa/wireguard-operator
2 participants
@uhthomas @jodevsa