-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.5k
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
fix #4355: adding logic to set/validate the container name #4505
Conversation
@@ -315,10 +315,10 @@ private URL getURL(String operation, String[] commands) throws MalformedURLExcep | |||
*/ | |||
String validateOrDefaultContainerId(String name) { | |||
Pod pod = this.require(); | |||
List<Container> containers = pod.getSpec().getContainers(); | |||
if (containers.isEmpty()) { | |||
if (pod.getSpec() == null || pod.getSpec().getContainers() == null || pod.getSpec().getContainers().isEmpty()) { | |||
throw new KubernetesClientException("Pod has no containers!"); |
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.
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.
I'm not sure that this is possible, I added this after implementing a test that failed (using the mockserver).
If it is possible to create a Pod without spec or containers (in real k8s -which I doubt), then we should definitely handle this
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.
No, I don't believe it was possible. But I wasn't sure how pervasive you were trying to cover those cases.
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.
So my thoughts:
- I don't think this resource can exist in a real cluster (Pod | PodTemplate) -I did a very quick test-
- I added this here because in the MockServer this resource can exist.
- I don't think it hurts having these guards here, although the most correct approach would be to create a valid resource in the test and remove these.
- I think it's fine leaving this here, but I can remove if you think it's inconsistent or that this might be confusing.
Please let me know what do you prefer
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.
How about a comment explaining that it's for making testing easier. There's less danger it will be unnecessarily copied later that way.
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.
sounds good
Signed-off-by: Marc Nuri <marc@marcnuri.com>
Signed-off-by: Marc Nuri <marc@marcnuri.com>
SonarCloud Quality Gate failed. |
Description
Fixes #4355 - direct or indirect (copy, upload) to exec / attach will now validate or set the container parameter in the same was as the kubectl client. This requires always fetching the pod prior to the exec / attach call and will always add the container argument.
We do not yet need to do this for log operations as we don't have a similar option to specify "don't get from all" without specifying a container name.
Type of change
test, version modification, documentation, etc.)
Checklist