-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 65
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: add ingress network policy with generic sandbox label #1113
feat: add ingress network policy with generic sandbox label #1113
Conversation
Co-authored-by: Matous Jobanek <[email protected]>
@@ -252,6 +252,19 @@ objects: | |||
kubernetes.io/metadata.name: redhat-ods-applications | |||
policyTypes: | |||
- Ingress | |||
- apiVersion: networking.k8s.io/v1 |
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.
BTW, we need to delete all intel tiers :) But let's do it in a separate 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.
got it, I'll open a new one, once those are merged!
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.
should we keep them , just in case they might be used by the intel team for their own kubesaw instance ?
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.
We can always revert the cleanup PRs later if needed. But most likely we won't need these tiers anytime soon.
@@ -197,6 +197,19 @@ objects: | |||
podSelector: {} | |||
policyTypes: | |||
- Ingress | |||
- apiVersion: networking.k8s.io/v1 |
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.
We don't have to modify the test tier. But it won't heart to add it here too.
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.
ok, makes sense. I wasn't sure, just wanted to be consitent.
/retest update e2e PR |
/retest fixed test |
/retest infra |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: alexeykazakov, mfrancisc, xcoulon The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
/retest fixed appstudio env and tenant ns |
/retest |
… allowfromdevsandboxmanaged
Quality Gate passedIssues Measures |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1113 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 79.44% 79.43% -0.02%
==========================================
Files 78 78
Lines 7785 7785
==========================================
- Hits 6185 6184 -1
- Misses 1422 1423 +1
Partials 178 178 |
This PR introduces an ingress network policy with a generic sandbox label that can be used on any operator namespace that needs to communicate with the user namespace.
e2e: codeready-toolchain/toolchain-e2e#1086