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

Add SecretRequest.spec.fromName to allow renaming on import #7

Open
ron1 opened this issue Jun 12, 2021 · 4 comments
Open

Add SecretRequest.spec.fromName to allow renaming on import #7

ron1 opened this issue Jun 12, 2021 · 4 comments
Labels
discussion This issue is not a bug or feature and a conversation is needed to find an appropriate resolution enhancement This issue is a feature request good first issue An issue that will be a good candidate for a new contributor priority/awaiting-more-evidence Lowest priority. Possibly useful, but not yet enough support to actually get it done.

Comments

@ron1
Copy link

ron1 commented Jun 12, 2021

Describe the problem/challenge you have
I need to rename secret when importing it into a new namespace.

Describe the solution you'd like
Add field SecretRequest.spec.fromName which allows SecretRequest.name and SecretRequest.spec.fromName to be different.

Anything else you would like to add:
This is needed for scenario where static secrets exist in a common source namespace and have target namespaces embedded in their names. When these secrets are imported into their target namespaces the target names should be stripped.

@ron1 ron1 added carvel-triage This issue has not yet been reviewed for validity enhancement This issue is a feature request labels Jun 12, 2021
@ron1 ron1 changed the title Add SecretRequest.spec.fromName to allow renaming Add SecretRequest.spec.fromName to allow renaming on import Jun 14, 2021
@joe-kimmel-vmw joe-kimmel-vmw added good first issue An issue that will be a good candidate for a new contributor priority/awaiting-more-evidence Lowest priority. Possibly useful, but not yet enough support to actually get it done. discussion This issue is not a bug or feature and a conversation is needed to find an appropriate resolution and removed carvel-triage This issue has not yet been reviewed for validity labels Dec 22, 2021
@joe-kimmel-vmw
Copy link
Contributor

@cppforlife any thoughts on tagging this as "accepted" meaning we would merge it if somebody does it?

@gmrodgers
Copy link
Contributor

Hey folks, just to follow up, are there concrete things blocking something like this being done? Or is it just waiting for someone to swoop in and do this?

@neil-hickey
Copy link
Contributor

I can't see anything being a blocker for this. WDTY @cppforlife ?

We just don't have the bandwidth to pick it up right now.

@cppforlife
Copy link
Contributor

Or is it just waiting for someone to swoop in and do this?

yup. im also not sure how complicated this would be, so somebody have to do some thinking (in a PR form or comment).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
discussion This issue is not a bug or feature and a conversation is needed to find an appropriate resolution enhancement This issue is a feature request good first issue An issue that will be a good candidate for a new contributor priority/awaiting-more-evidence Lowest priority. Possibly useful, but not yet enough support to actually get it done.
Projects
Status: Unprioritized
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants