derailed
flag for excluding popeye codes on reports
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe. When I using popey like "popeye -l warn", I got the warning messages "[POP-300] Using "default" ServiceAccount" This is not an issue, this is intended.
Describe the solution you'd like I want a flag, called "--exclude". It should be possible, to use a list t of "POP-XXX" Codes as parameter. For example "popeye -l warn --exclude POP-300,POP-403"
I would also like this. Especially for POP-300 and POP-400. Popeye does not appear to consider envFrom to be a "use" of a ConfigMap entry.
@peddyhh @howardjones Thank you both for reporting this. You can use a spinach.yml file to exclude the codes that you know are legit.
@howardjones EnvFrom is checked if that's no what you're seeing, please add more details here. Tx!!
In CD- or CS-Pipelines I don't want to use an extra spinach.yaml file. Sometimes it is not even possible to have an extra spinach.yaml file.
I would appreciate it a lot.
What about checking an annotation in certain resources? In my use case, I run a multi-tenant cluster with different teams split by namespaces. I run a central prometheus which gets metrics from the different namespaces (I run popeye once per namespace), so teams can see their scores in grafana.
At the end, I'm the owner of popeye and it can be really cumbersome to update the spinach files to allow certain rules under team requests, but it would be much effective if every team can annotate every resource they'd like to skip.
@derailed Would you accept an addition like that one?
OMG, I already did the suggestion at #160 ! Sorry about duplicating! I'll try to propose something, then :)
@danibaeyens lol - nw I thought this sounded familiar... Yes I think annotations make sense. Pb here you do loose control as some teams may elect for less restrictive measures about their spinach configurations and thus yield a seemingly higher scores while masking underlying issues??
@derailed absolutely. Great power comes with great responsibility
@howardjones Yes! I thought about assing that as well. Maybe every "skipping" annotation triggers a info rule (which severity can be overridden by the spinach file if needed).