-
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
make registry installation a component #18956
make registry installation a component #18956
Conversation
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: deads2k 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 |
cfdb3fb
to
1dc3faf
Compare
/retest |
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.
One question and one nit about upstream pr. The rest lgtm.
@@ -100,6 +100,18 @@ func NewInteractiveClientConfig(config clientcmdapi.Config, contextName string, | |||
return &DirectClientConfig{config, contextName, overrides, fallbackReader, configAccess, promptedCredentials{}} | |||
} | |||
|
|||
func NewClientConfig(config clientcmdapi.Config) ClientConfig { |
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.
How were you able to pass commit validation without an UPSTREAM commit?
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.
How were you able to pass commit validation without an UPSTREAM commit?
uh, not sure. I'll update the pull though.
RegistryServiceIP = "172.30.1.1" | ||
) | ||
|
||
type RegistryComponentOptions struct { |
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.
Are you thinking about creating an interface that all the 'install plugins' will re-use?
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.
Are you thinking about creating an interface that all the 'install plugins' will re-use?
Yes, but I want to see what I need before I commit. I think I will end up passing more information into the install method.
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.
This is a lot of code for something that will eventually be using an operator. What’s the short term benefit to formalizing this?
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.
This is a lot of code for something that will eventually be using an operator. What’s the short term benefit to formalizing this?
I get to formalize input and output interfaces for different components that want to participate in cluster up. I also get create oc cluster add/remove <component>
and that lets me bound the feature creep of cluster up.
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.
This is a lot of code for something that will eventually be using an operator. What’s the short term benefit to formalizing this?
Also, most of this code is a move with more explicit input to help us see the true dependency structures we need to snip.
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.
agree, I think this formalization will help is see the dependency chain better and we can promote this to operators when we will be ready... it also helps clean up the cluster up code we have today.
1dc3faf
to
f6910dc
Compare
/retest |
3 similar comments
/retest |
/retest |
/retest |
f6910dc
to
be6dc5e
Compare
New changes are detected. LGTM label has been removed. |
/refresh |
/retest |
1 similar comment
/retest |
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
@deads2k: The following test failed, say
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR. 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. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
/test all [submit-queue is verifying that this PR is safe to merge] |
Automatic merge from submit-queue. |
Demonstrate a simple way of making a component and installing it. This builds on previous pulls and shows how we can start define an interface.
I think after we switch pieces over, we'll find points of commonality as their entry points. I suspect they will include:
/assign @mfojtik
/assign @soltysh