Add bundle-run Makefile target

[clobrano]

Add Makefile's target to run bundle via operator-sdk.

Signed-off-by: Carlo Lobrano [email protected]

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: clobrano

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 [clobrano]

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

[mshitrit]

Do we plan to use this for anything other than to deploy operators on our dev clusters ?

[clobrano]

Do we plan to use this for anything other than to deploy operators on our dev clusters ?

And maybe to simplify testing for others

[clobrano]

/test openshift-e2e

[mshitrit]

maybe to simplify testing for others

I am not sure that code that is intended purely for dev purposes belongs here, my first intuition is that this would belong in a more internal space.

[razo7]

/retest

[clobrano]

I am not sure that code that is intended purely for dev purposes belongs here, my first intuition is that this would belong in a more internal space.

That's a good point and I don't have strong opinion about it

[mshitrit]

I am not sure that code that is intended purely for dev purposes belongs here, my first intuition is that this would belong in a more internal space.

That's a good point and I don't have strong opinion about it

@slintes , @razo7 WDYT, do you have any preference ?

[slintes]

What's the difference to all the other targets, isn't the complete Makefile for devs? 🤔

[mshitrit]

What's the difference to all the other targets, isn't the complete Makefile for devs? thinking

I guess that depends on how you define dev , from my perspective most of the targets have to do with testing/deploying the operator which are necessary to the CI.
IMO this different than a target which is used just to deploy on my local dev cluster.

Definitely not something I feel strongly about though, and IIUC other objections, so we can probably merge ahead.

[razo7]

I am not sure that code that is intended purely for dev purposes belongs here, my first intuition is that this would belong in a more internal space.

That's a good point and I don't have strong opinion about it

@slintes , @razo7 WDYT, do you have any preference ?

I join some of us who I believe agree that this is kind of gray area, if this target is needed or in the right place. I don't mind having it.
Maybe just change the bundle name to include something about that specific namespace, -n openshift-operators or even remove it from the target and set is as a variable that we can export?

[clobrano]

A variable we can export seems a good improvement

[clobrano]

I added this target to the "Bundle" section just because it refers to bundle, but would the "Development" section fit better?
https://github.com/medik8s/fence-agents-remediation/blob/main/Makefile#L138

[slintes]

What's the difference to all the other targets, isn't the complete Makefile for devs? thinking

I guess that depends on how you define dev , from my perspective most of the targets have to do with testing/deploying the operator which are necessary to the CI. IMO this different than a target which is used just to deploy on my local dev cluster.

ok, let me rephrase 😉
"IMHO the Makefile helps developers and CI to build and deploy the operator" 😎

A variable we can export seems a good improvement

👍🏼 (but openshift-operators is a good default value IMHO, as long as most people use it on OpenShift)

but would the "Development" section fit better?

I have no preferance 🤷🏼‍♂️

[razo7]

I added this target to the "Bundle" section just because it refers to bundle, but would the "Development" section fit better?
https://github.com/medik8s/fence-agents-remediation/blob/main/Makefile#L138

I don't mind of using the current location

[razo7]

/lgtm