[tigera-operator] Update the manifest directly#5991
Closed
GeorgianaElena wants to merge 1 commit into
Closed
Conversation
Member
Author
|
@yuvipanda can you please take a look at this and help me decide if this is the way to go, or if the approach in https://github.com/2i2c-org/infrastructure/pull/5990/files is sensible enough? |
Contributor
|
Merging this PR will trigger the following deployment actions. Support deploymentsNo support upgrades will be triggered Staging deployments
Production deployments
|
yuvipanda
reviewed
Apr 30, 2025
| ] | ||
| try: | ||
| with tempfile.NamedTemporaryFile( | ||
| mode="w+", suffix=".yaml", delete=False |
Member
|
Thank you for exploring multiple opportunities. I've responded in #5990 (comment) |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #5961
This updates the previous PR #5990 and updates the manifest directly to not contain the "NoSchedule" toleration before doing a server-side apply.
Reasoning
This is because
kubectl patchcannot be ran server-side and so it will cause ownership conflicts, forcing us to keep the-force-conflictsfrom the initial apply command.Before doing this I've also considered https://kubernetes.io/docs/reference/using-api/server-side-apply/#transferring-ownership, which worked, but the second apply would still need to take ownership using
-force-conflicts.Open question
We either do this, or keep the
k apply --force-conflictsfollowed by thek patchwhich from my understanding just gives ownership back tokubectllike it was initially?