dnspolicy section name support #961
Merged
Conversation
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
mikenairn
force-pushed
the
dnspolicy_section_name
branch
from
4790f37
to
910cb75
Compare
|
Changes looks very simple. +1 |
mikenairn
force-pushed
the
dnspolicy_section_name
branch
from
910cb75
to
52af9ea
Compare
mikenairn
commented
Oct 30, 2024
mikenairn
force-pushed
the
dnspolicy_section_name
branch
from
52af9ea
to
995e546
Compare
mikenairn
changed the title
Signed-off-by: Michael Nairn <mnairn@redhat.com>
DNSRecords are currently owned by the DNSPolicy that created them. We can't just update the ownership on policy change since the new policy may not be compatible with the current DNSRecord, instead we must re-create the DNSRecord resource. This is not ideal, issue to look into changing this Kuadrant/dns-operator#287 Signed-off-by: Michael Nairn <mnairn@redhat.com>
mikenairn
force-pushed
the
dnspolicy_section_name
branch
2 times, most recently
from
4311467
to
1818be2
Compare
Returns true if an existing record can knowingly be updated to a desired state based on the differences of the specs. Current known reasons for not being able to update are: * RootHost updates * Endpoint record type changes (A -> CNAME etc..) In both these cases, and any others that may be added to `canUpdateDNSRecord` the current record should be deleted before doing a create of the desired record. Signed-off-by: Michael Nairn <mnairn@redhat.com>
mikenairn
force-pushed
the
dnspolicy_section_name
branch
from
1818be2
to
504d443
Compare
|
Verifiation
👍 |
mikenairn
commented
Oct 31, 2024
| } | ||
|
|
||
| return true | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@maleck13 fyi, because i had to do this to deal with possible changes in record type when attaching a policy to a listener that already has existing records via policy attached to a gateway, it means we could probably remove this now https://github.com/Kuadrant/kuadrant-operator/blob/main/api/v1alpha1/dnspolicy_types.go#L56 and allow switching from simple to loadbalanced without the need for manual intervention.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'll do it in a different PR, will need some tests
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Add section name support to DNSPolicy.