Standardize convention for requesting namespaced resources #3288
Conversation
sarataha
force-pushed
the
namespaced-resource-convention
branch
3 times, most recently
from
32394ff to
bdb9359
Compare
| @@ -293,7 +297,7 @@ service ClustersService { | |||
| rpc ListSopsKustomizations(ListSopsKustomizationsRequest) | |||
| returns (ListSopsKustomizationsResponse) { | |||
| option (google.api.http) = { | |||
| get : "/v1/sops-kustomizations" | |||
| get : "/v1/clusters/{cluster_name}/sops-kustomizations" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
sops-kustomizations are not namespaced?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In ListSopsKustomizationsRequest, only cluster_name is used 🤔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So, this is an inconsistency we should fix.
This endpoint should return all the sops-kustomizations even when a cluster is omitted. So lets put this back to /v1/sops-kustomizations, and we can open an issue to stop it requiring a cluster filter.
| @@ -276,7 +280,7 @@ service ClustersService { | |||
| rpc GetPolicyConfig(GetPolicyConfigRequest) | |||
| returns (GetPolicyConfigResponse) { | |||
| option (google.api.http) = { | |||
| get : "/v1/policy-configs/{name}" | |||
| get : "/v1/clusters/{cluster_name}/policy-configs/{name}" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Some of policy stuff is not namespaced, policy-configs not?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess it's not namespaced based the test deployments 🤔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
And we should change this to `/v1/namespaces/{clusterNamespace}/clusters/{cluster_name}/policy-configs/{name}
| }; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // List external secrets stores | ||
| rpc ListExternalSecretStores(ListExternalSecretStoresRequest) | ||
| returns (ListExternalSecretStoresResponse) { | ||
| option (google.api.http) = { | ||
| get : "/v1/external-secrets-stores" | ||
| get : "/v1clusters/{cluster_name}/external-secrets-stores" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would guess these are namespaced too?
Sorry, these are just questsion! Maybe we add a collection of links to the PR description for non-namespaced resources
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should stay as /v1/external-secrets-stores and we should lift the clusterName constraint in the future.
| @@ -243,15 +246,16 @@ service ClustersService { | |||
| rpc GetExternalSecret(GetExternalSecretRequest) | |||
| returns (GetExternalSecretResponse) { | |||
| option (google.api.http) = { | |||
| get : "/v1/external-secrets/{external_secret_name}" | |||
| get : "/v1/clusters/{cluster_name}/namespaces/{namespace}" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"/v1/namespaces/{clusterNamespace}/clusters/{cluster_name}/namespaces/{namespace}"
sarataha
force-pushed
the
namespaced-resource-convention
branch
from
bdb9359 to
99c804d
Compare
- Small cleanup to getTemplates, don't need cluster namespace/name
Part of: #3220
What changed?
This PR standardizes the naming convention for requesting namespaced resources, in alignment with K8S practices. It specifically defines the structure for endpoints used to retrieve individual namespaced resources.
Example:
GET "/v1/clusters/{cluster_name}/namespaces/{namespace}/external-secrets/{external_secret_name}".Why was this change made?
This is part of the API clean up before publishing it for customer usage. It provides consistency in how namespaced resources are requested.
How was this change implemented?
How did you validate the change?
Explain how a reviewer can verify the change themselves
Integration tests -- what is covered, what cannot be covered;
or, explain why there are no new tests
Unit tests -- what is covered, what cannot be covered; are
there tests that fail without the change?
Release notes
Documentation Changes
Other follow ups