-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 55
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
fix(isvc): post testing #603
fix(isvc): post testing #603
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Alessio Pragliola <[email protected]>
8e2d2f1
to
3d8c419
Compare
Signed-off-by: Alessio Pragliola <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Alessio Pragliola <[email protected]>
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.
@@ -41,7 +41,8 @@ const ( | |||
modelVersionIDLabel = "modelregistry.kubeflow.org/model-version-id" | |||
namespaceLabel = "modelregistry.kubeflow.org/namespace" | |||
nameLabel = "modelregistry.kubeflow.org/name" | |||
urlLabel = "modelregistry.kubeflow.org/url" | |||
skipTLSVerifyAnnotation = "modelregistry.kubeflow.org/skip-tls-verify" |
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.
open question: this seems a cross-cutting concern of the environment, wouldn't make more sense to make it configurable at the test level/controller level, rather than per-k8s-resource?
I'm wondering if this doesn't open some concern in "prod" as it would allow to define a per-Isvc insecure connection (truly, it's opt-in, but I thought worthy in raising this)
wdyt?
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.
yeah you are right, seems like the wrong place to set this field
Signed-off-by: Alessio Pragliola <[email protected]>
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.
looks more intentional to me, thanks a lot for incorporating the feedback and it's always easy to reconsider this choice eventually if needed
/lgtm
/approve
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: tarilabs The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
Description
How Has This Been Tested?
tested on a local cluter and with
make test
Merge criteria:
DCO
check)