examples/operator: Remove duplicate operator service account definition

[mdnfiras]

Description

Kustomize fails to install the operator resources in a custom namespace (i.e vitess namespace):

kustomize build failed: namespace transformation produces ID conflict: [{"apiVersion":"v1","kind":"ServiceAccount","metadata":{"annotations":{"internal.config.kubernetes.io/previousKinds":"ServiceAccount","internal.config.kubernetes.io/previousNames":"vitess-operator","internal.config.kubernetes.io/previousNamespaces":"example"},"name":"vitess-operator","namespace":"vitess"}} {"apiVersion":"v1","kind":"ServiceAccount","metadata":{"annotations":{"internal.config.kubernetes.io/previousKinds":"ServiceAccount","internal.config.kubernetes.io/previousNames":"vitess-operator","internal.config.kubernetes.io/previousNamespaces":"default"},"name":"vitess-operator","namespace":"vitess"}}]

Related Issue(s)

• Fixes: Bug Report: Kustomize operator service account duplicate definition conflict #19054

Checklist

• "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported to release branches
• If this change is to be back-ported to previous releases, a justification is included in the PR description
• Tests were added or are not required
• Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on CI?
• Documentation was added or is not required

Deployment Notes

No deployment notes.

AI Disclosure

No AI was used for this change.

[vitess-bot]

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

• Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
• Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

• Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

• Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
• New features should be documented.
• There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
• There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

• Is this flag really necessary?
• Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

• Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
• If the workflow needs to be marked as required, the maintainer team must be notified.

Backward compatibility

• Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
• Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
• RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
• If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from vitess-operator and arewefastyet, if used there.
• vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.

[vitess-bot]

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

• Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
• Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

• Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

• Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
• New features should be documented.
• There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
• There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

• Is this flag really necessary?
• Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

• Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
• If the workflow needs to be marked as required, the maintainer team must be notified.

Backward compatibility

• Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
• Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
• RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
• If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from vitess-operator and arewefastyet, if used there.
• vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.

[mattlord]

@mdnfiras can you please create an issue with a test case describing how to repeat the failure you saw?

[mdnfiras]

Hi @mattlord
I created the issue: #19054

[mattlord]

@mdnfiras it looks like the vtop_example tests are now failing. Also, just FYI, the operator lives here and if indeed changes are necessary here then we should sync things up there: https://github.com/planetscale/vitess-operator/tree/main

[mdnfiras]

I added back the namespace reference in the ClusterRoleBinding resource to fix the latest vtop_example job error:

The ClusterRoleBinding "vitess-operator" is invalid: subjects[0].namespace: Required value

I tested with Kustomize, Kustomize still can override this namespace reference if a custom namespace is used.

[mattlord]

Seems fine to me. Thanks, @mdnfiras ! ❤️

It does seem like we might have the same problems with the operator itself? I'm not sure though:

• https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aplanetscale%2Fvitess-operator%20service_account.yaml&type=code
• https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aplanetscale%2Fvitess-operator+vitess-operator-backup-storage&type=code

That's my only concern. I'm not sure what unintended/unwanted side effects these changes may have...

[mdnfiras]

Should I implement the same changes in repo planetscale/vitess-operator?

[mattlord]

Should I implement the same changes in repo planetscale/vitess-operator?

@mdnfiras could you please open a PR there to make the equivalent changes? The tests that run in the CI will give us a much better signal as to whether or not there are any unexpected/unintended side effects. Thank you! ❤️

[mdnfiras]

Opened PR planetscale/vitess-operator/pull/738

[github-actions]

This PR is being marked as stale because it has been open for 30 days with no activity. To rectify, you may do any of the following:

• Push additional commits to the associated branch.
• Remove the stale label.
• Add a comment indicating why it is not stale.

If no action is taken within 7 days, this PR will be closed.

[github-actions]

This PR was closed because it has been stale for 7 days with no activity.