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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Feature/inject volume mounts #3
Feature/inject volume mounts #3
Changes from all commits
94b8efc
ed01480
bfd60ff
9a57a1a
071bad1
4311f02
25c8a15
e87746e
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
My only comment on the PR would have been the use of
corev1.VolumeMount
As singular vsVolumeMounts
In most other places. There is some mix between singular and plular throughout that is not clear to me why it needs to be different.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.
Well,
corev1.VolumeMount
refers to the Kubernetes specification of a single volumeMount in a container object. Now that we want to have more than one volumeMount in our config, I named itvolumeMounts
which is referring to a list ofvolumeMounts
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.
do you want to return an error?
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.
Why would I return an error here, as we're consciously checking for matching names to not override an existing volumeMount? I could write a log message saying that the volume mount exists already and that it's not being replaced, but probably that won't be beneficial or what do you think?
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.
It depends on what semantics you want. An
add
of an already existing mount could be interpreted as something out of wack. In the context ofmerge
ing behavior this make more sense to me.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 logic is sound to me