Remove checking the resource key with the annotation because their generation logic are different
What this PR does / why we need it:
context: https://github.com/pipe-cd/pipecd/issues/4269#issuecomment-2031079364
Removed checking the resource key with the annotation because their generation logic differs.
Previously, I tried to keep using the annotation pipecd.dev/resource-key, but found that some k8s resources inherit the parent's annotation and can't be attached correct resource key.
ref: https://github.com/pipe-cd/pipecd/pull/4858#issuecomment-2048982687
So I decided to remove the checking.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Part of https://github.com/pipe-cd/pipecd/issues/4269 Previous PR https://github.com/pipe-cd/pipecd/pull/4858
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:
- How are users affected by this change:
- Is this breaking change:
- How to migrate (if breaking change):
Codecov Report
Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 1 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.
Project coverage is 29.25%. Comparing base (
42371a0) to head (92164f2).
| Files | Patch % | Lines |
|---|---|---|
| ...g/app/piped/platformprovider/kubernetes/applier.go | 0.00% | 1 Missing :warning: |
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #4891 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 29.24% 29.25%
=======================================
Files 318 318
Lines 40597 40593 -4
=======================================
Hits 11874 11874
+ Misses 27784 27780 -4
Partials 939 939
:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
I checked the prune behavior like below.
cluster scoped resource
- ✅ namespace exists in app.pipecd.yaml
- ✅ namespace doesn't exist in app.pipecd.yaml
namespace scoped resource
- ✅ namespace exists in app.pipecd.yaml
- ✅ namespace doesn't exist in app.pipecd.yaml
There is a problem about the resource key of cluster scoped resources. I'll consider it later to modify the effect scope.
close this PR because I decided another solution for it. context: https://github.com/pipe-cd/pipecd/issues/4269#issuecomment-2104055928 follow the PR → https://github.com/pipe-cd/pipecd/pull/4916