-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 901
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
Move networkpolicies out of /contrib into /common (#2385) #2457
Changes from 2 commits
408b64d
c5b17fa
7819972
04747c5
af840eb
d37c1bb
4ff6ea1
e699190
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -3,3 +3,4 @@ approvers: | |
reviewers: | ||
- juliusvonkohout | ||
- kimwnasptd | ||
- TobiasGoerke |
This file was deleted.
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ sortOptions: | |
- MutatingWebhookConfiguration | ||
- ServiceAccount | ||
- PodSecurityPolicy | ||
- NetworkPolicy | ||
- Role | ||
- ClusterRole | ||
- RoleBinding | ||
|
@@ -49,6 +50,8 @@ resources: | |
- ../common/istio-1-16/cluster-local-gateway/base | ||
# Kubeflow namespace | ||
- ../common/kubeflow-namespace/base | ||
# NetworkPolicies | ||
- ../common/networkpolicies/base | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. @kimwnasptd @juliusvonkohout Are there any concerns with enabling network policies by default? Is there any concern around how impacts any additional components users deploy either from This also would mean that any changes made by WG that do not align with current network policies would need to be addressed during the manifest testing time frame of the release. Is that something that Manifest WG wants to take on for all future releases as part of the release cycle? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I think there is a lot of discussion in #2385. It is more about how we want to do project governance and enforce security. I can do testing for that. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. We should include automated tests with the PR if the netpol will be enabled by default, to test the current policies and future changes to the policies. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. What exactly would you like to test? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Since we can't automatically trigger e2e right now, we can at least trigger all the component tests to ensure that it passes with netpol enabled. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Do you not think that it is a bit overkill to add the networkpolicies folder as path to 10 different GH actions? I would either use the e2e pipeline or make a simple test that just validates the networkpolicies with kustomize There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I think that just capturing
With Kubeval:
Kubectl Validate:
@annajung my proposal is to consider using OpenAPI validation tools for testing manifest generation, aside from any other e2e and runtime checks.
I can try to do a bit of hacking around with the GH Action workflows to test using the There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. After checking the entire
Maybe deserves separate topic to cover checking multiple components. Adding the name to the file/resource where the errors are found would be useful as well, but I think also just the name of the Kubernetes resources is good for starters. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Unit test could look something like the following: But the problem is that for custom resources, operators etc, the CRDs needs to be passed as local folders for openAPI schemas extraction, so more work is needed for this.
|
||
# Kubeflow Roles | ||
- ../common/kubeflow-roles/base | ||
# Kubeflow Istio 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.
@juliusvonkohout Seldon isn't installed by default, so does it make sense to add this policy by default?
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.
That depends. We can also think about moving it to /contrib/seldon