-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 232
eck webhook default value clarified #6734
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
Open
eedugon
wants to merge
1
commit into
main
Choose a base branch
from
eck_enable_webhook
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+5
−2
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
can we remove "default" later in this sentence? we might rephrase to say "if you're editing x y z / installed using x y z methods, the setting is already present and set to true"
I think a think that makes this confusing is we call this manual configuration but likely it's being applied in a layer over one of these defaults. we also say "If you installed ECK without the webhook" but what is the context that makes this possible?
consider putting this default mismatch info directly in the description rather than as a note below the table
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You can install ECK without the webhook by tweaking the
operator.yamlmanifest file before installing through a manifest, or by tweaking thevalues.yamlbefore installing the helm chart. When doing that, you can decide to either "remove the webhook setting" (it would then default to false :) ), or set it to false explicitly.I think it's a good practice when installing a production system to decide what exact configuration you want and not just deploy the quickstart or the default provided file, and some users could have installed ECK without the webhook.
Anyway, this PR aims to solve a possible confusion due to the fact that we provide default config files enabling the webhook but internally the code has a default value of disabling it. That can generates a bit of confusion when reading both sentences.
We can rephrase it to something like:
But please suggest whatever you think it's better :)
What I want to ensure is that people doesn't get confused when reading these two sentences:
enable-webhookdefault value is falseOh, and if you believe we can remove the note completely because the other minor change we did already avoids the possible confusion then I'm totally ok with it too ;)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
that rephrase looks better to me.