-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 261
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
feat: auto respect rbac for discovery/sync #532
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Soumya Ghosh Dastidar <gdsoumya@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Soumya Ghosh Dastidar <gdsoumya@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Soumya Ghosh Dastidar <gdsoumya@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Soumya Ghosh Dastidar <gdsoumya@gmail.com>
Codecov ReportPatch coverage:
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #532 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 55.63% 54.67% -0.97%
==========================================
Files 41 41
Lines 4553 4635 +82
==========================================
+ Hits 2533 2534 +1
- Misses 1825 1905 +80
- Partials 195 196 +1
☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
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.
Initial round of review, and I have some comments and questions.
PTAL.
clientset, err := kubernetes.NewForConfig(config) | ||
if err != nil { | ||
return err | ||
} |
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.
Instead of creating a new client here for the core API, could we not just reuse the existing dynamic client and then call it something like client.Resource(schema.FromAPIVersionAndKind("authorization.k8s.io/v1", "SelfSubjectAccessReviews").Create()
below? Creating a new client imho has some side-effects (i.e. a new client-side rate limiter etc).
If there's a specific reason for using a new client, a comment would be nice as to why.
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.
No specific reason, I thought of using the concrete type instead of using dynamic client. Will test out with dynamic client instead.
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.
Tested it with dynamic client and for some reason the request to create the access review resource failed with an unauthorized error. I wasn't able to determine why it was happening but my best guess is the dynamic client needs a namespace for creating the resource, but access review is a cluster scope resource so when I pass "" as the namespace it fails the request.
05917b9
to
4049709
Compare
Signed-off-by: Soumya Ghosh Dastidar <gdsoumya@gmail.com>
4049709
to
9b1f75b
Compare
Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed! 0 Bugs No Coverage information |
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.
LGTM!
This PR implements this proposal. PR enables gitops engine to automatically stop watching for resources that it does not have permission to access without having to manually set resource exclusions.