Ignore secret checks in the indexercluster when the pod is not yet created #1430
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
akondur
approved these changes
Jan 30, 2025
vivekr-splunk
approved these changes
Jan 31, 2025
|
Thanks for considering this proposal, if I can be of assistance to help you with it let me know! |
akondur
approved these changes
Feb 5, 2025
…nto idxc_skip_secret_if_no_pod
…k/splunk-operator into idxc_skip_secret_if_no_pod
Collaborator
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 13271414929Details
💛 - Coveralls |
|
Thank you for accepting this proposal! ❤️ |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Re-created from #1429
From @mcaci
I'm proposing this change to make the code verify that the pod for which the secret(s) need to be updated is actually present before getting its secret(s).
This is related to the issue #1428. Feel free to reach me if you want more context on this change.