Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

chore: remove default CSI component images #3256

Merged

Conversation

c3y1huang
Copy link
Contributor

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Issue longhorn/longhorn#9580

What this PR does / why we need it:

  • Remove the default CSI component images from the command flag.
  • Validate the required command flags are not empty.

Special notes for your reviewer:

None

Additional documentation or context

None

longhorn/longhorn-9580

Signed-off-by: Chin-Ya Huang <[email protected]>
longhorn/longhorn-9580

Signed-off-by: Chin-Ya Huang <[email protected]>
@c3y1huang c3y1huang self-assigned this Nov 8, 2024
Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Nov 8, 2024

Walkthrough

The changes in this pull request introduce a new function, validateFlags, in app/driver.go to centralize the validation of required flags for deploying the CSI driver. It replaces previous inline checks with a dedicated error handling mechanism. Additionally, several default image constants related to CSI components have been removed from csi/deployment.go, aligning the code with the existing definitions in YAML and charts and reducing redundancy.

Changes

File Change Summary
app/driver.go Added validateFlags function to check required flags for deployment; integrated into DeployDriverCmd. Removed inline flag checks.
csi/deployment.go Removed default image constants: DefaultCSIAttacherImage, DefaultCSIProvisionerImage, DefaultCSIResizerImage, DefaultCSISnapshotterImage, DefaultCSINodeDriverRegistrarImage, DefaultCSILivenessProbeImage.

Assessment against linked issues

Objective Addressed Explanation
Remove the default CSI component images in longhorn-manager ( #9580 )

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

@c3y1huang
Copy link
Contributor Author

@coderabbitai review

Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Nov 8, 2024

✅ Actions performed

Review triggered.

Note: CodeRabbit is an incremental review system and does not re-review already reviewed commits. This command is applicable only when automatic reviews are paused.

Copy link

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
app/driver.go (1)

146-163: Consider enhancing the validation function.

The implementation is solid and achieves the goal of preventing deployment with missing configurations. However, consider these improvements for better maintainability and robustness:

  1. Group related flags into categories (e.g., core flags, CSI component flags)
  2. Add function documentation explaining its purpose and validation rules
  3. Consider additional validation beyond emptiness (e.g., image format validation)

Here's a suggested enhancement:

+// validateFlags ensures all required flags are provided and valid.
+// It checks both core manager flags and CSI component image flags.
 func validateFlags(c *cli.Context) error {
+    // Core manager flags
+    coreFlags := []string{
+        FlagManagerImage,
+        FlagManagerURL,
+    }
+
+    // CSI component image flags
+    csiFlags := []string{
+        FlagCSIAttacherImage,
+        FlagCSIProvisionerImage,
+        FlagCSIResizerImage,
+        FlagCSISnapshotterImage,
+        FlagCSINodeDriverRegistrarImage,
+        FlagCSILivenessProbeImage,
+    }
+
+    // Validate core flags
+    for _, flag := range coreFlags {
+        if c.String(flag) == "" {
+            return fmt.Errorf("core flag %q cannot be empty", flag)
+        }
+    }
+
+    // Validate CSI component flags
+    for _, flag := range csiFlags {
+        if c.String(flag) == "" {
+            return fmt.Errorf("CSI component flag %q cannot be empty", flag)
+        }
+    }
+
+    return nil
 }
📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between a503949 and 732956d.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • app/driver.go (1 hunks)
  • csi/deployment.go (0 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
  • csi/deployment.go
🔇 Additional comments (1)
app/driver.go (1)

135-137: LGTM! Validation check is properly placed.

The validation check is correctly positioned before the driver deployment, with appropriate error handling that follows the existing pattern.

Copy link
Member

@derekbit derekbit left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@derekbit derekbit merged commit 911f793 into longhorn:master Nov 8, 2024
9 of 10 checks passed
@c3y1huang c3y1huang deleted the chore-remove-default-csi-component-images branch November 10, 2024 23:42
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants