I second all of the above! 🙂

I'm using the Jenkins Helm chart and noticed that the URL is called multiple times at startup which makes startup slower.

In fact, what would be even more awesome would be to bulk-apply changes. Currently, if the configuration is split in multiple files, the k8s-sidecar sends the HTTP call for each file, but it might call the URL with an incomplete (and broken) configuration if all files are not on the volume.

This can happen quite easily when using the Jenkins Helm chart but I'm sure it can happen in other cases. My Jenkins instance can end up in a pretty bad shape because it tries to load incomplete configuration. This can also happen at runtime, as we tend to update our configuration files in bulk.

What would be awesome would be to watch for changes, and if one is detected, process all the files at once and send a single HTTP call at the end.

Side note: in my use-case, I need the HTTP call to be issued at startup too, just once when all config maps are processed.

Would be open to working on this (I'm a newbie in Python though).

@quilicicf You could chime in and continue with the PR @pkosiec contributed, the following tasks are still open:

• rebase with master
• write tests

Will try to have a look 👍

Hey @quilicicf, Sure, feel free to continue my PR. Unfortunately, I didn't have time to update the tests, however the functionality works as it should.

I've got a rebased version of the branch now, but I'll need guidance on the tests.

I don't understand how they work currently, can't find the entrypoint 🤔

It's basically a bash script embedded into the github action... 🙈
Nobody took the the time to port that into a proper test framework but it does the job and is better than nothing.

No worries, just not used to GitHub actions yet, was looking for a Jenkinsfile or .travis.yml 🙃 Habits die hard.
I'm actually better with Bash than python, so that's mostly good news for me 😅

I have had a look and I must say it's a bit overwhelming currently 😅

The tests require a K8s cluster to run so they're relatively cumbersome to run on a dev's machine and I'm having a hard time entangling input from output and what tests what :-(

I'm not sure I'm up to the task unfortunately, it feels too hard to contribute to the tests as they are and I don't think it's reasonable to suggest creating new tests from scratch either in a technical environment I'm not very comfortable with 🙁

I am sorry to hear that. Let me try to explain what's happening and maybe you change your mind?

1. we build both the sidecar and a very simple python based http server over here, the images are not pushed to a registry but archived as build artifacts
2. on each tested k8s (spun up via Kind) we load the images into the cluster and create 2 sidecar and 1 http server pod here
3. we then load the initial "resources" (configmaps and secrets) into the cluster and wait for their names to appear in the logs of both sidecars here
4. we archive all the logs so far as they might be valuable for debugging if the assertions fail later on
5. using kubectl we download all the files we expect both sidecars to have created (or not) from the pods into the job workspace here
6. we update the resources as the sidecar is expected to pick up updates es well, the changed resource definitions can be found here
7. we then have a single, monstrous shell statement which includes all assertions using file diffing, file tests and kubectl calls and needs to fail if a single expected outcome has not been satisfied

Hope that helps...?

I know this can't really be tested easily on a dev machine but we can run the workflow on the PR pretty easy as often as necessary.

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had any activity in the last 60 days. Thank you for your contributions.