Initial version of CEL resource expressions. #928
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -63,10 +63,22 @@ type ReceiverSpec struct { | |
| // +optional | ||
| Events []string `json:"events,omitempty"` | ||
|
|
||
| // TODO: Validate one or other (or both?) | ||
|
|
||
| // A list of resources to be notified about changes. | ||
| // +required | ||
| Resources []CrossNamespaceObjectReference `json:"resources"` | ||
|
|
||
| // ResourceExpressions is a list of CEL expressions that will be parsed to | ||
| // determine resources to be notified about changes. | ||
| // The expressions must evaluate to CEL values that contain the keys "name", | ||
| // "kind", "apiVersion" and optionally "namespace". | ||
| // These values will be parsed to CrossNamespaceObjectReferences. | ||
| // e.g. {"name": "test-resource-1", "kind": "Receiver", "apiVersion": | ||
| // "notification.toolkit.fluxcd.io/v1"}. | ||
| // +optional | ||
| ResourceExpressions []string `json:"resourceExpressions,omitempty"` | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. I think this should be named There was a problem hiding this comment. @stefanprodan The last test is borked because of a bug in controller-runtime which I've fixed, but is yet to be released If I understand what you're saying here, you would have This wouldn't be dynamic tho', it's not clear how it would solve the problem outlined in #491? There was a problem hiding this comment.
Precisely, that's exactly what we discussed in the dev meeting today! There was a problem hiding this comment.
Our reasoning is security, this style forces a more secure stance, the user always have to the declare which resources can be reconciled by the Receiver. They may end up with a long list of resources but at least it will always be clear from the Receiver object which Flux objects can be reconciled from that Receiver. |
||
|
|
||
| // SecretRef specifies the Secret containing the token used | ||
| // to validate the payload authenticity. | ||
| // +required | ||
|
|
||
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.
This will need to be addressed, because you could have
.spec.resourceExpressionsor.spec.resources(or both).