-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.8k
feat: add remaining CEL validations #7881
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
Conversation
mviswanathsai
left a comment
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.
Sorry about the delays.
Looks good to me for the most part, just one nit.
CC: @slashpai
slashpai
left a comment
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.
@simonpasquier PTAL if we ok we can get merge and get this in next release :)
| t.Run("DaemonSetInvalidPVCRetentionPolicy", testDaemonSetInvalidPVCRetentionPolicy) | ||
| t.Run("DaemonSetInvalidScrapeConfigSelector", testDaemonSetInvalidScrapeConfigSelector) | ||
| t.Run("DaemonSetInvalidProbeSelector", testDaemonSetInvalidProbeSelector) | ||
| t.Run("DaemonSetInvalidScrapeConfigNamespaceSelector", testDaemonSetInvalidScrapeConfigNamespaceSelector) |
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.
nit: we could have table driven tests combining all tests in this but that can be a followup PR
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.
Will work on a follow up ! @slashpai
simonpasquier
left a comment
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 would need a rebase to trigger the CI again.
|
@slashexx can you do a rebase, there are no conflicts but main branch is much ahead |
|
@slashpai will do |
|
would you be able to do rebase today? I am trying to get new operator release today, if done today we can get this one also :) |
Signed-off-by: slashexx <[email protected]>
d64fe47 to
2f62487
Compare
|
@slashpai done ! I've also rebased all pending PRs :D |
Description
This PR adds the remaining CEL validations for fields which were missing before.
Important to note that these fields are yet to be finalised and await merge of #7571
Closes: #7880
Type of change
What type of changes does your code introduce to the Prometheus operator? Put an
xin the box that apply.CHANGE(fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)FEATURE(non-breaking change which adds functionality)BUGFIX(non-breaking change which fixes an issue)ENHANCEMENT(non-breaking change which improves existing functionality)NONE(if none of the other choices apply. Example, tooling, build system, CI, docs, etc.)Verification
Please check the Prometheus-Operator testing guidelines for recommendations about automated tests.
Changelog entry
Please put a one-line changelog entry below. This will be copied to the changelog file during the release process.