Skip to content
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

Update TestPipelineRunWithServiceAccountNameAndTaskRunSpec to use different podtemplate field #3462

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 27, 2020

Conversation

savitaashture
Copy link
Contributor

Modified TaskRunSpecs to use different podtemplate fields because using HostNetwork: true causes permission issue with downstream projects (like OpenShift)

failed to create task run pod "pipelinerunwithasas-task1-swzq2": pods "pipelinerunwithasas-task1-swzq2-pod-kmdmw" is forbidden: unable to validate against any security context constraint: [provider restricted: .spec.securityContext.hostNetwork: Invalid value: true: Host network is not allowed to be used spec.initContainers[0].securityContext.hostNetwork

And TestPipelineRunWithServiceAccountNameAndTaskRunSpec usecase is to test the emptyness of ServiceAccountName and TaskRunSpec so we can specify any podtemplate fileds to verify the scenario.

Signed-off-by: Savita Ashture sashture@redhat.com

/cc @vdemeester

Changes

Submitter Checklist

These are the criteria that every PR should meet, please check them off as you
review them:

  • Includes tests (if functionality changed/added)
  • Includes docs (if user facing)
  • Commit messages follow commit message best practices
  • Release notes block has been filled in or deleted (only if no user facing changes)

See the contribution guide for more details.

Double check this list of stuff that's easy to miss:

Reviewer Notes

If API changes are included, additive changes must be approved by at least two OWNERS and backwards incompatible changes must be approved by more than 50% of the OWNERS, and they must first be added in a backwards compatible way.

Release Notes

NONE

@tekton-robot tekton-robot added release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Oct 27, 2020
@piyush-garg
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm

@tekton-robot tekton-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 27, 2020
@piyush-garg
Copy link
Contributor

/kind test

@tekton-robot tekton-robot removed the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 27, 2020
@piyush-garg
Copy link
Contributor

/kind misc

@tekton-robot tekton-robot added the kind/misc Categorizes issue or PR as a miscellaneuous one. label Oct 27, 2020
@piyush-garg
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm

@tekton-robot tekton-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 27, 2020
@tekton-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: vdemeester

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:

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

@tekton-robot tekton-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Oct 27, 2020
@tekton-robot tekton-robot merged commit b7baded into tektoncd:master Oct 27, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. kind/misc Categorizes issue or PR as a miscellaneuous one. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants