-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2k
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: Support filtering annotations allowlist by "*" #2234
feat: Support filtering annotations allowlist by "*" #2234
Conversation
|
Welcome @xonvanetta! |
/lgtm |
Robot asked me to /assign @mrueg |
Resolves: add-wilcard-allowlist-annotations
/triage accepted |
Desc string | ||
AnnotationsAllowlist map[string][]string | ||
EnabledResources []string | ||
Wanted LabelsAllowList |
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 this be
Wanted LabelsAllowList | |
Wanted AnnotationsAllowList |
?
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.
Well, It reuses the same type from the test above here. I could declare a new type and point it to options.LabelsAllowList
, while at it should I change this to a more generic also?
I noticed that these two tests test the same function in the end, I wrote tests first then went to implement, remove the test or keep it?
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.
Ah I didn't know AnnotatiosAllowList don't exist. I think we can keep it for this change like this. :)
/lgtm |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: CatherineF-dev, mfld, mrueg, xonvanetta 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 |
What this PR does / why we need it:
Same as #1823. Thought this was done on both allowlist since they are the same type but this wasn't the case. Added support for both now.
How does this change affect the cardinality of KSM: No change.