Skip to content
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

Merged

Conversation

mfrancisc
Copy link
Contributor

@mfrancisc mfrancisc commented Dec 16, 2024

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

mfrancisc and others added 22 commits December 7, 2023 12:21
@@ -252,6 +252,19 @@ objects:
kubernetes.io/metadata.name: redhat-ods-applications
policyTypes:
- Ingress
- apiVersion: networking.k8s.io/v1
Copy link
Contributor

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.

Copy link
Contributor Author

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!

Copy link
Contributor Author

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 ?

Copy link
Contributor

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
Copy link
Contributor

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.

Copy link
Contributor Author

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.

@mfrancisc
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

update e2e PR

@mfrancisc
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

fixed test

@mfrancisc
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

infra

Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Dec 17, 2024

[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:
  • OWNERS [alexeykazakov,mfrancisc,xcoulon]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@mfrancisc
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

fixed appstudio env and tenant ns

@mfrancisc
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

@mfrancisc mfrancisc merged commit d3c2c60 into codeready-toolchain:master Dec 17, 2024
11 of 13 checks passed
@mfrancisc mfrancisc deleted the allowfromdevsandboxmanaged branch December 17, 2024 17:49
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 17, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 79.43%. Comparing base (d45ae89) to head (ec0bb86).
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

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              

see 1 file with indirect coverage changes

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants