-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14
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
Verify deploy validation for missing secrets #49
Closed
LucasRoesler
wants to merge
1
commit into
openfaas:master
from
LucasRoesler:feature-test-deploy-rejects-function-with-mmissing-secret
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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.
FYI this won't work with the Operator which is declarative, it does no validation at deployment time of related secrets.
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.
Is that the behavior we want to allow for certification? If so, then we can just remove this. I don't think we should add a feature flag for every possible behavior but instead decide what the core behavior is and cover that.
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.
To be fair, we could check the info endpoint first and only execute this against faas-netes, swarm and potentially faasd. The info endpoint gives back a name of the provider.
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.
My thought is that the certifier should define the baseline integration tests required to say something is an OpenFaaS provider. I don't think it is good for us to add several different switches for each endpoint to handle the differences between swarm/netes/operator/containerd/rancher/etc
In this case, I think we say that this is not specified behavior and leave it to the provider to have its own tests for this kind of behavior. Adding this kind of validation unit test to swarm/netes is straightforward and easily fits within their existing test suites.
In general, we should not treat
certifier
as an e2e test for the entire project, we will end up with too many flags and code branches to cover everything. Or we say this is the e2e for the project and this means the Operator is out of spec and has a bug.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 will need some divergence for faasd where scaling is capped at 1/1. I think this test is useful to include, but should be ignored for the operator. Can you think of or suggest any ways that might be done and not fall into the pitfall you mentioned?