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

Bug 1993977: Bump to 0.11.0 #50

Merged
merged 17 commits into from
Aug 16, 2021
Merged

Conversation

paulfantom
Copy link

Signed-off-by: paulfantom pawel@krupa.net.pl

cc @s-urbaniak @raptorsun

paulfantom and others added 17 commits July 21, 2021 10:32
Signed-off-by: paulfantom <pawel@krupa.net.pl>
Fix waiting for kind cluster in e2e tests
Setting a nil-value typed object in the `DelegatingAuthenticatorConfig`
will cause the generic logic to still evaluate is as non-nil since
Golang does not consider `(*type)(nil)` as `nil` in `== nil` comparison
unless `type == nil`, too.

This leads to a setup of an x509 authenticator that attempts to call
`VerifyOptions` on a nil object.
Signed-off-by: paulfantom <pawel@krupa.net.pl>
.github/workflows: enable golangci-lint
Signed-off-by: Sergiusz Urbaniak <sergiusz.urbaniak@gmail.com>
allow path patterns in --allow-paths and --ignore-paths
Signed-off-by: Sergiusz Urbaniak <sergiusz.urbaniak@gmail.com>
* release-0.11:
  CHANGELOG.md: add 0.10.0 release notes
  *: cut v0.11.0 release
  allow path pattern in --allow-paths and --ignore-paths
  examples: regenerate
  VERSION: fix v0.10.0
  *: lint code
  .golangci: configure
  .github/workflows: enable golangci-lint
  Prevent panics on client-cert authenticated requests
  Fix waiting for kind cluster in e2e tests
@paulfantom paulfantom changed the title Fix waiting for kind cluster in e2e tests Bump to 0.11.0 Aug 10, 2021
@s-urbaniak
Copy link

/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. labels Aug 11, 2021
@simonpasquier
Copy link

/lgtm

I think that brancz#132 would deserve a bugzilla: a team configuring a service monitor with TLS client authentication but not passing the client CA file to kube-rbac-proxy would trigger a panic of kube-rbac-proxy. Though such a change wouldn't pass CI tests, it's not a nice user experience and hard to troubleshoot.

@openshift-ci
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Aug 16, 2021

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: paulfantom, s-urbaniak, simonpasquier

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

@paulfantom paulfantom changed the title Bump to 0.11.0 Bug 1993977: Bump to 0.11.0 Aug 16, 2021
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the bugzilla/severity-medium Referenced Bugzilla bug's severity is medium for the branch this PR is targeting. label Aug 16, 2021
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the bugzilla/invalid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is invalid for the branch this PR is targeting. label Aug 16, 2021
@openshift-ci
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Aug 16, 2021

@paulfantom: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1993977, which is invalid:

  • expected the bug to target the "4.9.0" release, but it targets "---" instead

Comment /bugzilla refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Bugzilla bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

In response to this:

Bug 1993977: Bump to 0.11.0

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/test-infra repository.

@paulfantom
Copy link
Author

/bugzilla refresh

@openshift-ci
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Aug 16, 2021

@paulfantom: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1993977, which is invalid:

  • expected the bug to target the "4.9.0" release, but it targets "---" instead

Comment /bugzilla refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Bugzilla bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

In response to this:

/bugzilla refresh

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/test-infra repository.

@paulfantom
Copy link
Author

/bugzilla refresh

1 similar comment
@paulfantom
Copy link
Author

/bugzilla refresh

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the bugzilla/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. label Aug 16, 2021
@openshift-ci
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Aug 16, 2021

@paulfantom: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1993977, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state. The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug
  • bug is open, matching expected state (open)
  • bug target release (4.9.0) matches configured target release for branch (4.9.0)
  • bug is in the state ASSIGNED, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, ON_DEV, POST, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @juzhao

In response to this:

/bugzilla refresh

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/test-infra repository.

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot removed the bugzilla/invalid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is invalid for the branch this PR is targeting. label Aug 16, 2021
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot requested a review from juzhao August 16, 2021 13:22
@openshift-ci
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Aug 16, 2021

@paulfantom: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1993977, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug
  • bug is open, matching expected state (open)
  • bug target release (4.9.0) matches configured target release for branch (4.9.0)
  • bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, ON_DEV, POST, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @juzhao

In response to this:

/bugzilla refresh

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/test-infra repository.

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot merged commit 58e0929 into openshift:master Aug 16, 2021
@openshift-ci
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Aug 16, 2021

@paulfantom: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged:

Bugzilla bug 1993977 has been moved to the MODIFIED state.

In response to this:

Bug 1993977: Bump to 0.11.0

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/test-infra repository.

@paulfantom paulfantom deleted the bump-to-0.11.0 branch August 16, 2021 13:29
@openshift-bot
Copy link

[ART PR BUILD NOTIFIER]

This PR has been included in build kube-rbac-proxy-container-v4.9.0-202311250023.p0.g58e0929.assembly.stream for distgit kube-rbac-proxy.
All builds following this will include this PR.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. bugzilla/severity-medium Referenced Bugzilla bug's severity is medium for the branch this PR is targeting. bugzilla/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants