Operator Config API #20
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
nb-ohad
force-pushed
the
op-config-api
branch
7 times, most recently
from
e29d24f
to
841a767
Compare
Madhu-1
reviewed
Jun 26, 2024
|
@Madhu-1 done |
API generated using the following command: "kubebuilder create api --group csi --version v1alpha1 --kind OperatorConfig" Signed-off-by: nb-ohad <[email protected]>
Madhu-1
approved these changes
Jun 26, 2024
parth-gr
pushed a commit
to parth-gr/ceph-csi-operator
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 26, 2024
…k-17-to-release-4.17 BUG 2304810: [release-4.17] add owners to downstream repo
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Describe what this PR does
Adds new API named OperatorConfig (operatorconfigs.csi.ceph.io) to capture operator-level configuration including overwrites for driver spec default configuration
The PR does not include CRD field validation rules.
This will be resolved in a future PR
Is there anything that requires special attention
No
Related issues
Future concerns
There is still an active discussion around API naming and at the time of this PR we are still open to future name changes