add ServicePackageName to ack-user-config and ack-user secrets

[acornett21]

Issue #, if available:

• Fixes: Add support for controller specific secrets and configmaps community#1149

Description of changes:
Add in support for service specific configmaps and secret so that a cluster admin can configure each service differently, or the same if they so choose.

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

Signed-off-by: Adam D. Cornett adc@redhat.com

[acornett21]

@komish Please take a look.

[ack-bot]

Hi @acornett21. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a aws-controllers-k8s member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[komish]

This seems reasonable enough. It does, however, mean that administrators who want the same configuration for all installed controllers would effectively have to duplicate configmaps and secrets, right? Was there a user request requesting the feature?

Either way, this looks like it should accomplish this and seems useful 👍

[RedbackThomson]

This seems reasonable enough. It does, however, mean that administrators who want the same configuration for all installed controllers would effectively have to duplicate configmaps and secrets, right? Was there a user request requesting the feature?

Either way, this looks like it should accomplish this and seems useful 👍

The current method means that you cannot install multiple controllers with separate permissions, though - which is arguably a larger security concern. I think this PR does a good job of trading off that security concern for your ease of use concern.

[acornett21]

This seems reasonable enough. It does, however, mean that administrators who want the same configuration for all installed controllers would effectively have to duplicate configmaps and secrets, right? Was there a user request requesting the feature?

Yeah you are correct, it's a trade off, they would need to duplicate if they wanted the same configuration. And yes, this granularity was asked for by a user int he Kube slack channel.

[a-hilaly]

/ok-to-test

[jaypipes]

👍 doh, sorry for the delay in review/merge @acornett21!

[jaypipes]

/lgtm

[ack-bot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: acornett21, jaypipes

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [jaypipes]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment