feat: add basic deployment lock implementation #252
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
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #252 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 53.42% 51.85% -1.57%
==========================================
Files 20 22 +2
Lines 1402 1537 +135
==========================================
+ Hits 749 797 +48
- Misses 586 667 +81
- Partials 67 73 +6 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
bozerkins
reviewed
Feb 24, 2024
|
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
When merged, it will close #251
Currently, the implementation is highly experimental and does not cover cases when the application was started after the start of the pre-defined window for deployment lock.
We can pass the schedule configuration from helm values like this: (the required changes are not yet merged)
Or just set it from the web interface. In case of keycloak integration being enabled, membership in a privileged group is required.
An alternative approach would be to create some custom way to pass the lockdown timeframe and validate each request against it. At the moment, it seems to be overengineering.