-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 80
[Proposal] Add a 'podSpecPath' field in WorkloadDefinition #233
Comments
+1, I also noticed this issue for a while: |
+1. |
This reminds me of the |
@ryanzhang-oss This field doesn't need to present if:
A workload is podspecable if the podspecable label present on its definition. |
@hongchaodeng @resouer @ryanzhang-oss Yes, it's an optional field as I said in the proposal, it could have following behaviors: No label and No
|
Signed-off-by: 天元 <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: 天元 <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: 天元 <[email protected]>
We have discussed a lot and finally conclude to add labels like
workload.oam.dev/podspecable
to indicate the workload will contain 'podSpec' in it's spec.But it's hard to know which field is podSpec, so I propose we add a 'podSpecPath' field in WorkloadDefinition.
By defualt, if
workload.oam.dev/podspecable: true
label is set butpodSpecPath
not, we may go tospec.template
to find 'podTemplate', and get 'podSpec' inspec.template.spec
.If this field is set like below, we will directly regard path specified in
podSpecPath
aspodSpec
path, in this example, it'sspec.podSpec
This is also needed to fix kubevela/kubevela#354
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: