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.

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

NETOBSERV-690 (spike): move eBPF image pullspec from CRD to CSV #190

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Nov 21, 2022
Merged

NETOBSERV-690 (spike): move eBPF image pullspec from CRD to CSV #190

merged 2 commits into from
Nov 21, 2022

Conversation

mariomac
Copy link
Contributor

@mariomac mariomac commented Nov 7, 2022

From "Best Practices" document:

Images to be used for operands MUST be in the relatedImages field and SHOULD be in environment variables to the operator.

As an initial test, I'm moving first only one image to evaluate how will it work with CPaaS. Once we succeed, we will move the rest of images.

@mariomac mariomac changed the title Spike: move eBPF image pullspec from CRD to CSV NETOBSERV-690 (spike): move eBPF image pullspec from CRD to CSV Nov 8, 2022
@@ -280,6 +275,7 @@ spec:
set up for the plugin Deployment.
properties:
maxReplicas:
default: 3
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

🤔 are these changes related to your environment ?

I see FlowCollectorHPA.MaxReplicas defined using:

MaxReplicas int32 `json:"maxReplicas" protobuf:"varint,3,opt,name=maxReplicas"`

instead of using annotations like:

//+kubebuilder:validation:Minimum=0
//+kubebuilder:default:=3

We should create a followup to harmonize these if it's the case

Copy link
Contributor Author

@mariomac mariomac Nov 8, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This isn't related to my changes. But the generated flowcollectors manifest was outdated so when I regenerated mine, the old changes took effect.

Maybe we should add a test target that verifies that the manifests are always up to date.

Copy link
Contributor

@jpinsonneau jpinsonneau left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM in terms of code. Thanks @mariomac !

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot removed the lgtm label Nov 21, 2022
@openshift-ci
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Nov 21, 2022

New changes are detected. LGTM label has been removed.

@openshift-ci
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Nov 21, 2022

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

Approval requirements bypassed by manually added approval.

This pull-request has been approved by:

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 /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@mariomac mariomac merged commit f600af6 into netobserv:main Nov 21, 2022
@mariomac mariomac deleted the move-versions branch November 21, 2022 10:18
KalmanMeth pushed a commit to KalmanMeth/network-observability-operator that referenced this pull request Feb 13, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants