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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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
feat: auto respect rbac for discovery/sync #532
feat: auto respect rbac for discovery/sync #532
Changes from 5 commits
2dbca50
60236d6
0e33a53
56c89ca
e103a6a
9b1f75b
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.
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.