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

Added policies warn-k8s-namespace-conftestcombine-bestpractices #27

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 24, 2020
Merged

Conversation

garethahealy
Copy link
Contributor

What is this PR About?

Split out: #19

How do we test this?

See the action

cc: @redhat-cop/rego-policies

@redhat-cop-ci-bot
Copy link

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: garethahealy

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

manifests[i].kind == "Namespace"
namespace := manifests[i]

not namespaceHasNetworkPolicy(namespace, manifests)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@garethahealy - does namespace := manifests[i] pop the item out of the array so it's no longer in manifests ?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@garethahealy garethahealy Jun 24, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

no, just sets the var - I just do that to make it easier to read

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

oh ok - so namespace is not needed in your function below

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

not currently, but if the policy was to be extended to match selectors, then yep it would

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That's grand, i'll merge this one in now so.

@springdo
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants