You've already forked helm-actions
refactor!: remove actions runner token provisioning (#15)
To be discussed. In https://gitea.com/gitea/helm-actions/issues/9#issuecomment-1002191 and https://gitea.com/gitea/helm-actions/pulls/13 I described that a migration of provisioning is currently not feasible due to - helm limitations - You are forced to repeat a lot of stuff for the default branch - helm-actions cannot read values of the helm-gitea chart to fix this - No agreement about making helm-gitea a optional dependency of helm-actions can be reached at the moment # Proposal - Create a new repository that includes both helm-gitea **and** helm-actions - Provisioning leaves this repository as well like it did in helm-gitea - Create that as gitea/helm-stack or whatever name - Provisioning code and tests moves to gitea/helm-stack We would need help with the repository creation Reviewed-on: https://gitea.com/gitea/helm-actions/pulls/15 Reviewed-by: DaanSelen <daanselen@noreply.gitea.com> Co-authored-by: ChristopherHX <christopherhx@noreply.gitea.com> Co-committed-by: ChristopherHX <christopherhx@noreply.gitea.com>
This commit is contained in:
@ -5,49 +5,15 @@ release:
|
||||
templates:
|
||||
- templates/01-consistency-checks.yaml
|
||||
tests:
|
||||
- it: fails when provisioning is enabled BUT persistence is completely disabled
|
||||
set:
|
||||
persistence:
|
||||
enabled: false
|
||||
enabled: true
|
||||
provisioning:
|
||||
enabled: true
|
||||
asserts:
|
||||
- failedTemplate:
|
||||
errorMessage: "persistence.enabled and persistence.mount are required when provisioning is enabled"
|
||||
- it: fails when provisioning is enabled BUT mount is disabled, although persistence is enabled
|
||||
set:
|
||||
persistence:
|
||||
enabled: true
|
||||
mount: false
|
||||
enabled: true
|
||||
provisioning:
|
||||
enabled: true
|
||||
asserts:
|
||||
- failedTemplate:
|
||||
errorMessage: "persistence.enabled and persistence.mount are required when provisioning is enabled"
|
||||
- it: fails when provisioning is enabled AND existingSecret is given
|
||||
set:
|
||||
enabled: true
|
||||
provisioning:
|
||||
enabled: true
|
||||
existingSecret: "secret-reference"
|
||||
asserts:
|
||||
- failedTemplate:
|
||||
errorMessage: "Can't specify both actions.provisioning.enabled and actions.existingSecret"
|
||||
- it: fails when provisioning is disabled BUT existingSecret and existingSecretKey are missing
|
||||
set:
|
||||
enabled: true
|
||||
provisioning:
|
||||
enabled: false
|
||||
asserts:
|
||||
- failedTemplate:
|
||||
errorMessage: "existingSecret and existingSecretKey are required when provisioning is disabled"
|
||||
- it: fails when provisioning is disabled BUT existingSecretKey is missing
|
||||
set:
|
||||
enabled: true
|
||||
provisioning:
|
||||
enabled: false
|
||||
existingSecret: "my-secret"
|
||||
asserts:
|
||||
- failedTemplate:
|
||||
@ -55,8 +21,6 @@ tests:
|
||||
- it: fails when provisioning is disabled BUT existingSecret is missing
|
||||
set:
|
||||
enabled: true
|
||||
provisioning:
|
||||
enabled: false
|
||||
existingSecretKey: "my-secret-key"
|
||||
asserts:
|
||||
- failedTemplate:
|
||||
@ -64,8 +28,6 @@ tests:
|
||||
- it: fails when LOCAL_ROOT_URL is missing
|
||||
set:
|
||||
enabled: true
|
||||
provisioning:
|
||||
enabled: false
|
||||
existingSecret: "my-secret"
|
||||
existingSecretKey: "my-secret-key"
|
||||
asserts:
|
||||
|
Reference in New Issue
Block a user