Hasan Turken

@bobh66 is this PR still relevant or should we close it?

Could you try with SSA and see if helps? https://github.com/crossplane-contrib/provider-kubernetes/pull/134

@artem-nefedov you're right, this looks like a limitation of the current `ReadynessCheck` configuration, opened an issue to follow-up on that: https://github.com/crossplane/crossplane/issues/4091 I believe this issue should be solved at the...

Per [latest discussions](https://github.com/crossplane/crossplane/issues/4091#issuecomment-1558139291) under the XP issue, I am wondering if we should solve this here with an option like: ``` spec: readinessFromObject: true ``` which would copy the ready...

We had the same issue on Crossplane side and this is how we fixed it: https://github.com/crossplane/crossplane/pull/4859/files

@codes4coffee please consider reopening by providing more details if this is still an issue you're having.

> is there a workaround for this issue ? You can delete `spec.resourceRef` in your claim as a workaround.

> When the composite is deleted by the user, Crossplane will try to create a new composite - always with a new name. This is because the claim controller sets...

After the discussions on the [latest design](https://github.com/crossplane/crossplane/pull/4366), we are aligned on enabling this at the upper layers rather than implementing it at the Managed Resource level. See [this comment](https://github.com/crossplane/crossplane/pull/4366#issuecomment-1702893346) summarizing...

It is worth clarifying that validating a composition resource, and the individual composed resources are separate, hence have different requirements. **Validating Individual Composed Resources:** This is something we already have...