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

Cluster behind VPN and Webhook #24

Closed
cmoulliard opened this issue Mar 7, 2024 · 2 comments · Fixed by #40
Closed

Cluster behind VPN and Webhook #24

cmoulliard opened this issue Mar 7, 2024 · 2 comments · Fixed by #40
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@cmoulliard
Copy link

Issue

The Gihub Webhook created here https://github.com/parodos-dev/workflow-software-templates/blob/main/scaffolder-templates/basic-workflow/template.yaml#L218 will not work if the cluster used to deploy the resources is behind a VPN.

In this case, it is needed that we offer alternatives:

Proposition A

Add a new field within the template to let the user to pass their smee.io - URL which can forward the traffic from the github webhook to the internal cluster

Proposition B

As Gitea is supported since backstage 1.23 as action, we can let the user to create the git repositories running on gitea deployed on an internal cluster.
Such a use case works pretty well as documented here using Tekton Trigger + gitea interceptor and webhook

Remark: We could even suggest to the developer/user to use the idpbuilder project as it bootstraps a kind cluster with ingress, argocd and gitea by default and could be easily extended with serverless workflow stuffs using custom packages !

@dmartinol dmartinol added the enhancement New feature or request label Mar 8, 2024
@dmartinol
Copy link
Collaborator

@cmoulliard this is a known limitation of the proposed solution, thanks for remarking it and proposing these valuable alternatives 👍
@pkliczewski we can track this as an issue in our project and then, once we understand the exact configuration of the customer, we can propose a validated option to workaround this issue. (they should be working with Bitbucket instead of GitHub, so probably option 2 above is not appropriate; and I'm not sure about their network configuration, whether they are under the VPN or not

@pkliczewski
Copy link
Contributor

I agree, it is known issue at the moment but we should have an issue tracking it and have a way to workaround it. Different users may use different version control systems so let's think about what we can support

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants