-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14
proposal: Support secret providers #47
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
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Henrique Spanoudis Matulis <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Great progress thanks!
Signed-off-by: Henrique Spanoudis Matulis <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Henrique Spanoudis Matulis <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Henrique Spanoudis Matulis <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Henrique Spanoudis Matulis <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Henrique Spanoudis Matulis <[email protected]>
LGTM. can you just update the description of the pull request for posteriority. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM generally! Just last nit noted by @rajagopalanand and good to go IMO!
Approving from my side, but I will ask around for a second Prometheus maintainer to have another look
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks pretty solid :) I just had some small questions
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Amazing feedback and discussion in https://github.com/prometheus/proposals/pull/47/files#r2041335383
Should we update the proposal with the mentioned alternatives considered?
What do you think is the reasonable solution from this discussion? I see the potential for changing proposal slightly to support the following (for consistency with SD):
password: "<inlined secret>"
password:
kubernetes:
namespace: "<ns>"
name: "<secret name>"
key: "<data's key for secret name>"
password:
file:
path: "<path to secret file>"
I vote for changing the proposal to be consistent with SD |
Signed-off-by: Henrique Spanoudis Matulis <[email protected]>
535a36e
to
9891e9c
Compare
d726925
to
b918d59
Compare
Signed-off-by: Henrique Spanoudis Matulis <[email protected]>
b918d59
to
ec70387
Compare
Signed-off-by: Henrique Spanoudis Matulis <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks! Excited to see this in action. :)
I changed the config style to be more consistent with SD in the proposal. Thanks everyone for all the feedback, and feel free to reach out on the prometheus slack if you have any feedback or ideas. I am working on an implementation for the proposal:) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks! @dgl @machine424 -- are you ok to merge? 🤗
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
lgtm, thanks!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, one last question :)
Signed-off-by: Henrique Spanoudis Matulis <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for workin on the proposal, I'm merging as soon as you tell me you're satisfied :)
I think I am ready to merge it, thanks everyone! |
proposal: Support secret providers
This PR adds a proposal to support specifying secrets through secret providers.
TL;DR from doc