-
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
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
feat: add ingress network policy with generic sandbox label #1113
Conversation
Co-authored-by: Matous Jobanek <[email protected]>
Quality Gate passedIssues Measures |
@@ -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.
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: alexeykazakov, mfrancisc 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 update e2e PR |
/retest fixed test |
@mfrancisc: The following test failed, say
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
/retest infra |
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