add rancher credential provider #40160
Conversation
|
Hi @wlan0. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a kubernetes member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with 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/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
cncf-cla: yes
|
This change is |
k8s-github-robot
added
size/L
|
ping @erictune |
k8s-github-robot
added
the
needs-rebase
|
@kubernetes/sig-auth-feature-requests |
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func init() { | ||
| client, err := getRancherClient() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I can't tell if this might return an error or not. If it can, then it should not be called here because init gets called for every cloud provider. If it can't consider removing error from the function signature.
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // Assuming it's always enabled | ||
| func (p *rancherProvider) Enabled() bool { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You should not be enabled if you fail to detect that you are running on Rancher (e.g. no CATTLE env vars.
wlan0
force-pushed
the
credentialprovider
branch
from
eeeb873 to
30827b8
Compare
k8s-github-robot
removed
the
needs-rebase
wlan0
force-pushed
the
credentialprovider
branch
from
30827b8 to
03923f4
Compare
|
ping @erictune. I've made the changed you suggested. |
k8s-github-robot
added
size/XXL
wlan0
force-pushed
the
credentialprovider
branch
from
948c35d to
0b809fe
Compare
k8s-github-robot
added
the
needs-rebase
wlan0
force-pushed
the
credentialprovider
branch
from
0b809fe to
6592ce2
Compare
k8s-github-robot
removed
the
needs-rebase
|
I've split the PR into two commits - one for the code changes, the other for the vendor dirs. This commit has the relevant code changes - |
k8s-github-robot
added
the
needs-rebase
|
@wlan0: you can't request testing unless you are a kubernetes member. In response to this comment:
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/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
|
/approve |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
|
@k8s-bot ok to test |
wlan0
force-pushed
the
credentialprovider
branch
from
c117166 to
7dfd7da
Compare
k8s-github-robot
removed
the
lgtm
|
/lgtm |
wlan0
force-pushed
the
credentialprovider
branch
from
7dfd7da to
40051ee
Compare
This is a flake! @k8s-bot cvm gce e2e test this |
|
How do I add a milestone to this? This is aimed for 1.7 release, or if possible 1.6.x |
k8s-github-robot
added
the
needs-rebase
wlan0
force-pushed
the
credentialprovider
branch
from
40051ee to
ac374e4
Compare
k8s-github-robot
removed
the
needs-rebase
wlan0
force-pushed
the
credentialprovider
branch
from
ac374e4 to
44ab110
Compare
wlan0
force-pushed
the
credentialprovider
branch
from
44ab110 to
3d58d79
Compare
|
The error seems to be a flake - @k8s-bot unit test this |
|
@k8s-bot gce etcd3 e2e test this |
|
/lgtm |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: dchen1107, erictune, thockin, wlan0
Needs approval from an approver in each of these OWNERS Files:
You can indicate your approval by writing |
| return registryCreds | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func TestRancherCredentialsProvide(t *testing.T) { |
|
@k8s-bot gce node e2e test this The tests are already green, but Submit Queue doesn't seem to recognize it |
|
@wlan0: The following test(s) failed:
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR. 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/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
|
Automatic merge from submit-queue |
This adds rancher as a credential provider in kubernetes.
@erictune This might be a good opportunity to discuss adding a provision for people to have their own credential providers that is similar to the new cloud provider changes (kubernetes/community#128). WDYT?