fix(webhook): deny deletion of SubNamespace with child namespaces #145
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
zoetrope
added
enhancement
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
If a client is allowed to delete a
SubNamespacewhere the sub-namespace has child namespaces, the controller becomes stuck on the finalization of theSubNamespace. The controller will not be allowed to delete the sub-namespaces by our namespace webhook.Since Kubernetes has no way to undelete a resource (unset the
deletionTimestampfield), all child namespaces must be manually deleted to allow theSubNamespacedeletion to be finalized.This PR introduces handling of DELETE verb to the subnamespaces validating webhook ensuring no subnamespaces can be deleted if the sub-namespace has child namespaces. It seems like there was a minor bug in the validating webhook configuration: it was configured to handle UPDATE verb, but the implementation was only addressing CREATE.
Close #144