-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 65
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
Add ability to reference Kubernetes ConfigMap / Secret values from container component #299
Comments
I missed this issue when creating #310 but we're talking about similar features (I think). |
Might be good to support
UPDATE: added to original proposal. |
@elsony do you think we could put this in the 2.2 milestone list? |
Community call discussion 3/28:
|
c.f. #1033 |
This issue is stale because it has been open for 90 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 60 days. |
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
As a devfile author, I would like to be able to reference ConfigMap & Secret values defined in the cluster, e.g. a maven repository password.
Describe the solution you'd like
The syntax doesn't fit into the existing devfile schema.
I'd like to see syntax, e.g. like:
Individual variables - Secret
RELATED VARIANTS
(Starting at JSONPath:
components[n].container
)Individual variables - ConfigMap
All variables - Secret
All variables - ConfigMap
Describe alternatives you've considered
Building passwords into container images creates a level of exposure.
I guess in theory this function could be pushed onto the specific tools' UI but that seems more cumbersome. Plus it misses the opportunity to capture this as an important descriptive property of the devfile.
Another approach would be to provide a syntax for "consuming" a secret/configmap value as a "global attribute" (as discussed in: parse plugin component and add component, command and events to the main devfile obj #240). Then for each container env it would simply "consume" the global attr value. I think my suggestion promotes this use case as more of a "first class" scenario so is preferable.
Additional context
I don't understand well enough to appreciate whether this would make sense for another component type besides 'container.... like 'kubernetes'-type or others?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: