Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat: introduce new CRD for in-process evaluation #632

Merged
merged 27 commits into from
May 27, 2024

Conversation

odubajDT
Copy link
Contributor

@odubajDT odubajDT commented May 7, 2024

Part-of: #542

Changes

  • introduce new CRD for in-process evaluation configuration
  • adapt mutating webhook to support in-process evaluation and injection of env variables
  • unit tests
  • e2e tests

Follow-up

  • adapt documentation

@odubajDT odubajDT changed the title chore: PoC new CRD for in-process evaluation [WIP] feat: introduce new CRD for in-process evaluation [WIP] May 14, 2024
@odubajDT odubajDT marked this pull request as ready for review May 15, 2024 07:40
@odubajDT odubajDT requested a review from a team as a code owner May 15, 2024 07:40
webhooks/pod_webhook.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
webhooks/pod_webhook.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@odubajDT odubajDT changed the title feat: introduce new CRD for in-process evaluation [WIP] feat: introduce new CRD for in-process evaluation May 15, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented May 15, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 82.02247% with 32 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 86.48%. Comparing base (918a697) to head (5036bbe).
Report is 12 commits behind head on main.

Current head 5036bbe differs from pull request most recent head 49172d0

Please upload reports for the commit 49172d0 to get more accurate results.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #632      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   88.24%   86.48%   -1.76%     
==========================================
  Files          10       19       +9     
  Lines         961     1539     +578     
==========================================
+ Hits          848     1331     +483     
- Misses         88      168      +80     
- Partials       25       40      +15     
Files Coverage Δ
apis/core/v1beta1/common/common.go 82.22% <100.00%> (+18.58%) ⬆️
apis/core/v1beta1/featureflagsource_types.go 96.66% <100.00%> (+0.07%) ⬆️
common/common.go 91.66% <ø> (-8.34%) ⬇️
webhooks/common.go 96.00% <66.66%> (-4.00%) ⬇️
webhooks/pod_webhook.go 79.45% <70.21%> (-7.22%) ⬇️
...v1beta1/featureflaginprocessconfiguration_types.go 82.75% <82.75%> (ø)
Flag Coverage Δ
unit-tests 86.48% <82.02%> (-1.76%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

@toddbaert
Copy link
Member

I think we need to substantially rework OFO's documentation, including this. I think it's out of scope of this PR.

cc @Kavindu-Dodan @beeme1mr

apis/core/v1beta1/common/common.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
webhooks/common.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
webhooks/pod_webhook.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Member

@toddbaert toddbaert left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This looks good to me.

I want to run a manual test with a real workload to confirm everything works end-to-end, and then I'll approve.

@Kavindu-Dodan
Copy link
Contributor

I will review this with a local run tomorrow 🤝

apis/core/v1beta1/common/common.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
apis/core/v1beta1/common/common_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
apis/core/v1beta1/common/common_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
apis/core/v1beta1/featureflagsource_types.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
webhooks/pod_webhook.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
odubajDT and others added 18 commits May 23, 2024 13:39
Signed-off-by: odubajDT <ondrej.dubaj@dynatrace.com>
Signed-off-by: odubajDT <ondrej.dubaj@dynatrace.com>
Signed-off-by: odubajDT <ondrej.dubaj@dynatrace.com>
Signed-off-by: odubajDT <ondrej.dubaj@dynatrace.com>
Signed-off-by: odubajDT <ondrej.dubaj@dynatrace.com>
Signed-off-by: odubajDT <ondrej.dubaj@dynatrace.com>
Signed-off-by: odubajDT <ondrej.dubaj@dynatrace.com>
Signed-off-by: odubajDT <ondrej.dubaj@dynatrace.com>
Signed-off-by: odubajDT <ondrej.dubaj@dynatrace.com>
Signed-off-by: odubajDT <ondrej.dubaj@dynatrace.com>
Signed-off-by: odubajDT <ondrej.dubaj@dynatrace.com>
Co-authored-by: Todd Baert <todd.baert@dynatrace.com>
Signed-off-by: odubajDT <93584209+odubajDT@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: odubajDT <93584209+odubajDT@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: odubajDT <93584209+odubajDT@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: odubajDT <ondrej.dubaj@dynatrace.com>
Signed-off-by: odubajDT <ondrej.dubaj@dynatrace.com>
Signed-off-by: odubajDT <ondrej.dubaj@dynatrace.com>
Signed-off-by: odubajDT <ondrej.dubaj@dynatrace.com>
Copy link
Contributor

@Kavindu-Dodan Kavindu-Dodan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM :)

Let's address these two concerns prior to merging,

  1. Conditional improvement
  2. Naming of the new CRD

Signed-off-by: odubajDT <ondrej.dubaj@dynatrace.com>
Signed-off-by: odubajDT <ondrej.dubaj@dynatrace.com>
Copy link
Contributor

@Kavindu-Dodan Kavindu-Dodan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM. I like the new CRD name InProcessConfiguration. Left this nit to improve error context. Once accepted, feel free to merge :)

Co-authored-by: Kavindu Dodanduwa <Kavindu-Dodan@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: odubajDT <93584209+odubajDT@users.noreply.github.com>
@toddbaert toddbaert merged commit 51db913 into open-feature:main May 27, 2024
15 checks passed
This was referenced May 27, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants