Skip to content
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: add value for istio revision namespace labels #63

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

josh-thisisbud
Copy link

@josh-thisisbud josh-thisisbud commented Nov 28, 2023

Allows using istio with a revision-based set up, that is, applying istio.io/rev labels to the Namespaces.

closes: #62

…with a revision based set up.

Signed-off-by: joshharwood <josh.harwood@thisisbud.com>
Copy link
Member

@thesuperzapper thesuperzapper left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@josh-thisisbud thanks for the PR!

However, there are a few important things missing:

  • Please add a new default value and docstring for deploykf_dependencies.istio.revision
  • The revision label values should be wrapped in quotes by piping to {{ ...revision | quote }} so we don't pass a number type for all-number labels

The profile namespaces will also need this label, but this may be a challenge, because even though you can tell the profile-controller to add labels under:

The problem is that even if we did something fancy like automatically injecting a deploykf_dependencies.istio.revision label to those values, the profile controller is not able to update existing labels (meaning the changes to revision would not be reflected in the profile namespaces).

So we either need to either:

  1. Make the profile controller (upstream in Kubeflow) able to reconcile labels
  2. Set the istio revision for profiles with a Kyverno ClusterPolicy

The second one is obviously the easiest, but I am always a bit hesitant to invoke the nuclear weapon that is Kyverno (unless absolutely necessary, which this case probably is).

Interested to know your thoughts.

@thesuperzapper thesuperzapper changed the title feat: Allow for setting the istio revision to allow use of existing istiod feat: add value for istio revision namespace labels Dec 11, 2023
@thesuperzapper thesuperzapper added the status/needs-discussion status - this needs discussion label Dec 14, 2023
@josh-thisisbud
Copy link
Author

I'll make the changes requested shortly and I'm inclined to agree that option #1 seems like the better option.

In the interim, we've started using the kubeflow manfests repo for our deployment so I'm not sure how much time I can give to resolving further issues with deployKF.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
changelog/feature status/needs-discussion status - this needs discussion
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Istio Revision is not supported
2 participants