-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 135
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
Manifests validation script #1139
Comments
I think a dry-run script like this would be very valuable. We recently completed some related work in #1112 that implements a related mechanism, to generate individual sites' CRs for evaluation and testing purposes, and this feels like a nice follow-on to that. Approach-wise, rather than having the script copy the contents out of our container, maybe it's worth looking in to the kustomize Containerized KRM Functions mechanism? No cp needed that way... |
Hi @lack , Many thanks, |
My suspicion would be either a difference in the version of kustomize, or because the error you see is talking about symlinks, perhaps an error in how we patched the ArgoCD container... |
I am using the same version of ztp-sitegenerate. So the one in the patch is the one I am using in the script. |
I did an interesting discovering: |
Ok, I understood that part of the errors I wanted to capture came from syncs with the OCP cluster. So, returned by the API-Server. With that dry-run=server now I can capture the desired errors. |
Hi all,
based on this documentation from @mvazquezc
RHsyseng/telco-operations#25
I am thinking on a kind of script that would validate the Manifests (Siteconfigs/PGT) before pushing to ArgoCD.
The motivation: many times you add a new manifest, or do some changes, push the change to your branch, from there a PR to main (or the branch synced with ArgoCD), accept the PR, then sync and... you realize you did a little mistake forgetting to add a file to kustomization, or some incorrect naming, and similar stuff. Repeating all the process again.
The script would be included as part of a CI/CD pipeline, avoiding to merge to main if there are errors, or similar thigs.
I am working in something like this:
It seems that kustomize build does not capture as many errors as ArgoCD does. For example: including a non-existing file in kustomization.yaml.
In ArgoCD you will have the error:
but the script above executes with no errors.
any ideas? do you think it makes sense to have something like this?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: