-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4
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
[DPE-2123] Ensure feature parity between kubectl and lightkube backends and add integration tests. #54
Conversation
The output produced from the program are presented to the user by writing directly the stdout (via print function). Also, the debug information should not appear as output to the user's console. For that, the log level of logs written in a few places have been demoted.
If no namespace is provided explicitly, for both backends, all service accounts in all namespaces that have the custom labels provided by this tool should be listed. Earlier, only the accounts in the `default` namespace were listed when no `--namespace` option was provided. This is done for the `lightkube` backend to be consistent with the `kubectl` backend, because `kubectl` lists all accounts in all namespaces by default.
For lightkube backend, the behavior should be the same as it exists in kubectl backend.
Since this information is only relevant for debugging purposes, this should not be a warning log.
Added new test cases for deletion of service account, adding config, removing config, clearing config, get primary and get config commands.
This needs to be done to ensure the service account, role and role binding to be created as part of creation of service account do not exist already in the Kubernetes cluster. If such scenario happens, then the program would crash with exception, while it may have created some resources already but still not able to create all of the resources.
Test the behavior of creation when the service account about to be created already exists in Kubernetes cluster.
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.
Great job @theoctober19th ! I have some suggestions comments here and there, but overall I really liked the PR, and I don't have major concerns.
Just run through the suggestions with @welpaolo and you are free to decide the way forward
Thanks!
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.
Really good job! I left some minor comments.
This PR
kubectl
andlightkube
backends consistent on all service account registry commands.Jira:
DPE-2123