Use suggested namespaces of packages #266
Conversation
JustinKuli
force-pushed
the
12057-packagemanifest-suggested-ns
branch
2 times, most recently
from
195b138
to
f26f665
Compare
|
/hold Another approach I'm thinking about now (an alternative to the admittedly odd annotation thing) is to only prevent the name/space change when the policy is musthave & enforce. Then to "force" the change, the user could change the policy to inform briefly, then back to enforce. This would also give them a chance to make the policy mustnothave if they did want to change the namespace of the operator, and clean up the old installation. @mprahl what do you think? Or it sounded like you were thinking preventing this kind of change might not be necessary? The situation I'm trying to prevent is where the operator's suggested namespace changes at some point, and OperatorPolicy creates a duplicate operator installation in the new namespace without any indication of the potential issue. |
Previously, if the namespace was not set for a Subscription in an OperatorPolicy, the default namespace on the controller (if set) would be used in all cases. But many packages specify a suggested namespace in their PackageManifests, which would be better to use, when provided. Additionally, if the OperatorPolicy was already managing a subscription, the namespace of that subscription will be used (if not set in the policy). This may prevent some issues that could occur if the suggested namespace for an operator changes at some point. Refs: - https://issues.redhat.com/browse/ACM-12057 Signed-off-by: Justin Kulikauskas <jkulikau@redhat.com>
JustinKuli
force-pushed
the
12057-packagemanifest-suggested-ns
branch
from
f26f665
to
e6d912d
Compare
|
/unhold I've removed the "Prevent unintended changes to operator name/space" commit, and made some changes to based on the initial review comments, which may avoid that whole potential issue. |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: JustinKuli, mprahl 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 |
openshift-merge-bot
bot
merged commit 125c471
into
open-cluster-management-io:main
(Originally this PR had 2 commits - 1 has been removed to be handled later if necessary)
Previously, if the namespace was not set for a Subscription in an
OperatorPolicy, the default namespace on the controller (if set) would
be used in all cases. But many packages specify a suggested namespace in
their PackageManifests, which would be better to use, when provided.
Additionally, if the OperatorPolicy was already managing a subscription,
the namespace of that subscription will be used (if not set in the
policy). This may prevent some issues that could occur if the suggested
namespace for an operator changes at some point.
Refs: