-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.3k
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
Replacements IgnoreMissingField #5777
Comments
This issue is currently awaiting triage. SIG CLI takes a lead on issue triage for this repo, but any Kubernetes member can accept issues by applying the The Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues. This bot triages un-triaged issues according to the following rules:
You can:
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community. /lifecycle stale |
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all issues. This bot triages un-triaged issues according to the following rules:
You can:
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community. /lifecycle rotten |
/remove-lifecycle rotten |
Eschewed features
What would you like to have added?
include in FieldOptions a bool for
IgnoreMissingField
in order to apply replacements across many files, ignoring those, that don't have the field.Why is this needed?
When using replacements as a reusable component across multiple manifests, especially in environmental overlays, a common pattern emerges. For example, certain elements like an accountId in an IRSA role annotation on a ServiceAccount often need to be replaced.
In cases where you have many ServiceAccount resources—such as N applications with M workloads and M ServiceAccounts—only X of those ServiceAccounts may require the annotation replacement, while others do not.
This approach ensures flexibility, allowing replacements to be applied only where needed, without enforcing unnecessary changes across all resources.
Can you accomplish the motivating task without this feature, and if so, how?
The task can be accomplished, but it requires more granular use of the replacement, targeting specific ServiceAccounts which can result in more complexity, code duplication, and errors.
What other solutions have you considered?
Pattern matching with regex on the target name so the replacement only applies to resources that match a specific name format.
Anything else we should know?
No response
Feature ownership
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: