-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 768
Be clear about secretName restrictions #8782
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
🔍 Preview links for changed docs |
🎉 Snyk checks have passed. No issues have been found so far.✅ security/snyk check is complete. No issues have been found. (View Details) ✅ license/snyk check is complete. No issues have been found. (View Details) |
pkg/apis/common/v1/common.go
Outdated
@@ -115,7 +115,9 @@ type ObjectSelector struct { | |||
ServiceName string `json:"serviceName,omitempty"` | |||
|
|||
// SecretName is the name of an existing Kubernetes secret that contains connection information for associating an | |||
// Elastic resource not managed by the operator. The referenced secret must contain the following: | |||
// Elastic resource not managed by the operator. | |||
// SecretName is only supported for monitoring associations. Refer to https://www.elastic.co/docs/deploy-manage/monitor/stack-monitoring/eck-stack-monitoring#k8s_connect_to_an_external_monitoring_elasticsearch_cluster |
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.
Isn't the link to the stack monitoring documentation a bit "restrictive"? We can use secretName
to setup Fleet's Elasticsearch output for example. I was wondering if we should not document or validate any limitation on the parent attribute, for example on FleetServerRef
.
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.
That's a good point. I think I overshot the target a bit after the issues our users had with this.
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.
Updated.
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
Be more explicit about the limitations of external associations. We have reports from users being confused about the availablity of the feature.