kubernetes-client
`KubeConfigMerger` object poorly structured when `KUBECONFIG` is a list of files.
I'm new around here and I was exploring the configuration flow/data structures and I ran into the realization that when I have the following set of config files:
KUBECONFIG=~/.kube/config-1:~/.kube/config-2:~/.kube/config-3
A KubeConfigMerger is constructed as follows (I went for a JSON representaiton of the object):
{
"KubeConfigMerger.config": {
"ConfigNode": {
"name": "path-1",
"path": "path-1",
"value": {
"clusters": [
{
"ConfigNode": {
"name": "path-1/{\"cluster\": {\"server\": \"server-1\"}, \"name\": \"cluster-name-1\"}\n",
"path": "path-1",
"value": {
"cluster": {
"server": "server-1"
},
"name": "cluster-name-1"
}
}
},
{
"ConfigNode": {
"name": "path-2/{\"cluster\": {\"server\": \"server-2\"}, \"name\": \"cluster-name-2\"}\n",
"path": "path-2",
"value": {
"cluster": {
"server": "server-2"
},
"name": "cluster-name-2"
}
}
},
{
"ConfigNode": {
"name": "path-3/{\"cluster\": {\"server\": \"server-3\"}, \"name\": \"cluster-name-3\"}\n",
"path": "path-3",
"value": {
"cluster": {
"server": "server-3"
},
"name": "cluster-name-3"
}
}
}
],
"contexts": [
{
"ConfigNode": {
"name": "path-1/{\"context\": {\"cluster\": \"server-1\", \"namespace\": \"namespace-1\", \"user\": \"user-1\"}, \"name\": \"context-name-1\"}\n",
"path": "path-1",
"value": {
"context": {
"cluster": "server-1",
"namespace": "server-1",
"user": "user-1"
},
"name": "context-name-1"
}
}
},
{
"ConfigNode": {
"name": "path-2/{\"context\": {\"cluster\": \"server-2\", \"namespace\": \"namespace-2\", \"user\": \"user-2\"}, \"name\": \"context-name-2\"}\n",
"path": "path-2",
"value": {
"context": {
"cluster": "server-2",
"namespace": "server-2",
"user": "user-2"
},
"name": "context-name-2"
}
}
},
{
"ConfigNode": {
"name": "path-3/{\"context\": {\"cluster\": \"server-3\", \"namespace\": \"namespace-3\", \"user\": \"user-3\"}, \"name\": \"context-name-3\"}\n",
"path": "path-3",
"value": {
"context": {
"cluster": "server-3",
"namespace": "server-3",
"user": "user-3"
},
"name": "context-name-3"
}
}
}
],
"users": [
{
"ConfigNode": {
"name": "path-1/{\"user\": {\"token\": \"token-1\"}, \"name\": \"user-name-1\"}\n",
"path": "path-1",
"value": {
"user": {
"token": "token-1"
},
"name": "user-name-1"
}
}
},
{
"ConfigNode": {
"name": "path-2/{\"user\": {\"token\": \"token-2\"}, \"name\": \"user-name-2\"}\n",
"path": "path-2",
"value": {
"user": {
"token": "token-2"
},
"name": "user-name-2"
}
}
},
{
"ConfigNode": {
"name": "path-3/{\"user\": {\"token\": \"token-3\"}, \"name\": \"user-name-3\"}\n",
"path": "path-3",
"value": {
"user": {
"token": "token-3"
},
"name": "user-name-3"
}
}
}
],
"current_context": "current-context"
}
}
}
}
So now the question is: Is the main ConfigNode whose atributes path and name take the name of the first file structured as intended?
I can see that the KubeConfigMerger.config is consumed by KubeConfigLoader as a ConfigNode, so I'm guessing those two attributes are just a consequence of the ConfigNode requiring them and are probably set there to not much purpose?
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues.
This bot triages un-triaged issues according to the following rules:
- After 90d of inactivity,
lifecycle/staleis applied - After 30d of inactivity since
lifecycle/stalewas applied,lifecycle/rottenis applied - After 30d of inactivity since
lifecycle/rottenwas applied, the issue is closed
You can:
- Mark this issue as fresh with
/remove-lifecycle stale - Close this issue with
/close - Offer to help out with Issue Triage
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.
/lifecycle stale
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all issues.
This bot triages un-triaged issues according to the following rules:
- After 90d of inactivity,
lifecycle/staleis applied - After 30d of inactivity since
lifecycle/stalewas applied,lifecycle/rottenis applied - After 30d of inactivity since
lifecycle/rottenwas applied, the issue is closed
You can:
- Mark this issue as fresh with
/remove-lifecycle rotten - Close this issue with
/close - Offer to help out with Issue Triage
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.
/lifecycle rotten
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs.
This bot triages issues according to the following rules:
- After 90d of inactivity,
lifecycle/staleis applied - After 30d of inactivity since
lifecycle/stalewas applied,lifecycle/rottenis applied - After 30d of inactivity since
lifecycle/rottenwas applied, the issue is closed
You can:
- Reopen this issue with
/reopen - Mark this issue as fresh with
/remove-lifecycle rotten - Offer to help out with Issue Triage
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.
/close not-planned
@k8s-triage-robot: Closing this issue, marking it as "Not Planned".
In response to this:
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs.
This bot triages issues according to the following rules:
- After 90d of inactivity,
lifecycle/staleis applied- After 30d of inactivity since
lifecycle/stalewas applied,lifecycle/rottenis applied- After 30d of inactivity since
lifecycle/rottenwas applied, the issue is closedYou can:
- Reopen this issue with
/reopen- Mark this issue as fresh with
/remove-lifecycle rotten- Offer to help out with Issue Triage
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.
/close not-planned
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-sigs/prow repository.
