-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15
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
NE-1808: Bump controller to v2.8.2 #139
Merged
openshift-merge-bot
merged 1 commit into
openshift:main
from
alebedev87:integrate-rebase-2-8-2
Dec 18, 2024
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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.
Is updating the iam-policy automated at all, or do you just have to manually look at https://github.com/openshift/aws-load-balancer-controller/blob/d0c13bf1576965a3b65fc09ebce94ed9f86833a2/docs/install/iam_policy.json to see if anything changed and manually sync it?
Edit: I commented on the wrong file, I know there's iamctl to sync iam-policy within the ALBO repo, but just curious if the upstream change is manually synced to this repo, and if so, is that something that we could fix in the future?
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.
For now, the process is manual. Initially I planned to automate it in this PR and even created a dedicated hack file for that purpose. However, I noticed that the semantic difference can sometimes be much smaller than the byte-by-byte difference because certain statements might be reshuffled upstream.
In this particular case, the semantic change was limited to adding the elasticloadbalancing:DescribeTrustStores action for the mTLS support (which we don't support yet).
I couldn’t find a straightforward way to sort the upstream policy that would minimize the diff while avoiding the risk of losing statements. As a result, I decided to keep the process manual so that multiple people can validate the changes.
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.
Makes sense. If someone in the future missed a iam-policy update on a rebase, would you expect it to get caught by E2E tests? Or is it a solid "maybe"?
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.
Not as solid as I would like it to be. The e2e tests cover only the scenarios described in the docs. If IAM policy changes go beyond this - we may miss them.