-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.7k
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
Fixing a typo in Hetzner Firewall Model management #15762
Conversation
|
Welcome @marcopalmisano! |
Hi @marcopalmisano. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a kubernetes member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
/ok-to-test |
Thanks for finding and fixing this @marcopalmisano! |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: hakman 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 |
…-upstream-release-1.26 Automated cherry pick of #15762: fix: fixed an edge case with setting NodePort access in
…-upstream-release-1.27 Automated cherry pick of #15762: fix: fixed an edge case with setting NodePort access in
Hello there kOps Mantainers :)
While we were using kOps for managing our Hetzner Cloud Production Clusters, we found that the cluster spec attribute
spec.nodePortAccess
(ofkind: Cluster
) was misbehaving with following error:Going deeper by analyzing the commits, it seems that a typo error was creating twice same firewall rules that triggered an hcloud package error (constraint: two rules can't be identical).
Since the fact that file was and remained untouched for several months (and the support for Hetzner clusters is still in beta), it seems to me a typo to double create TCP rules for firewall, if we should align to other deployment models for the rest of cloud providers, kOps should create two firewall rules: one for TCP traffic and one for UDP.
This simple fix attached was tested in production with success.
Refers to issue: #15763