include status subresource in validation #744
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
brunsgaard
reviewed
Nov 30, 2019
|
@FxKu for documentation purposes please add a comment describing why this validation should not affect older |
|
👍 |
1 similar comment
|
👍 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
otherwise editing manifests is a bit tedious.
EDIT: When running Postgres clusters since before the v1.2.0 release, it could be that the status is still in the old format, which is
Status: string. This happens because during sync we only update the status to the new format, if the status was not running. The validation does not affect running clusters. When you create new ones, you will not specify the status as this is up to the operator to define. You would only run into an error when manually editing the manifest, with status not beingPostgresClusterStatus: Running. But then you would simply delete that line, and validation would succeed. That's actually the scenario this PR want's to solve for the new format 😃