Skip to content

CORS-4041: Remove the TagManager from the GCP Custom Endpoints #2323

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

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

barbacbd
Copy link
Contributor

** The tag manager or tagging does appear to have a service in GCP, but this particular one is NOT used. Instead openshift uses the cloud resource manager service, so there is no need to support Tag Manager.

** The tag manager or tagging does appear to have a service in GCP, but this particular
one is NOT used. Instead openshift uses the cloud resource manager service, so there is
no need to support Tag Manager.
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the jira/valid-reference Indicates that this PR references a valid Jira ticket of any type. label May 15, 2025
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

openshift-ci-robot commented May 15, 2025

@barbacbd: This pull request references CORS-4041 which is a valid jira issue.

In response to this:

** The tag manager or tagging does appear to have a service in GCP, but this particular one is NOT used. Instead openshift uses the cloud resource manager service, so there is no need to support Tag Manager.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented May 15, 2025

Hello @barbacbd! Some important instructions when contributing to openshift/api:
API design plays an important part in the user experience of OpenShift and as such API PRs are subject to a high level of scrutiny to ensure they follow our best practices. If you haven't already done so, please review the OpenShift API Conventions and ensure that your proposed changes are compliant. Following these conventions will help expedite the api review process for your PR.

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. label May 15, 2025
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot requested review from deads2k and jkyros May 15, 2025 18:32
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented May 15, 2025

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: barbacbd
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign joelspeed for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

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

@barbacbd
Copy link
Contributor Author

/cc @JoelSpeed

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot requested a review from JoelSpeed May 15, 2025 18:34
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented May 15, 2025

@barbacbd: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name Commit Details Required Rerun command
ci/prow/integration f990078 link true /test integration
ci/prow/verify-crd-schema f990078 link true /test verify-crd-schema
ci/prow/okd-scos-e2e-aws-ovn f990078 link false /test okd-scos-e2e-aws-ovn

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

Copy link
Contributor

@JoelSpeed JoelSpeed left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

When did this API ship initially? What is happening in the cluster today for folks who already specify this value? What will happen when we drop support? Do you have any idea how many people this change might affect?

@@ -630,7 +630,7 @@ const (
)

// GCPServiceEndpointName is the name of the GCP Service Endpoint.
// +kubebuilder:validation:Enum=Compute;Container;CloudResourceManager;DNS;File;IAM;ServiceUsage;Storage;TagManager
// +kubebuilder:validation:Enum=Compute;Container;CloudResourceManager;DNS;File;IAM;ServiceUsage;Storage
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

What happens to existing resources when you remove this value? This API has shipped so to be able to remove a value we would need to be certain that it won't break existing resources.

Can you please add a ratcheting validation test (see tests/README.md) to make sure this change will allow existing resources with this value set to:

  • Update the field itself to remove the bad value
  • Update the field value to add a new value
  • Update other fields around the field while leaving an invalid value in place

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
jira/valid-reference Indicates that this PR references a valid Jira ticket of any type. size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants