这是indexloc提供的服务,不要输入任何密码
Skip to content

[release-0.23] Check the ClusterDomainClaim before creating kcert. #12085

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

Conversation

knative-prow-robot
Copy link
Contributor

This is an automated cherry-pick of #12080

Fixes an issue where TLS certificates are requested before domain-ownership is established.

I unfortunately ran afoul of a change in the default behavior where
`DomainMapping` stopped creating `ClusterDomainClaim` by default, and
I unfortunately had auto-TLS enabled, and before I could enable this
creation, my Let's Encrypt quota for the week had been exhausted.

It seems like the best course all around is to verify the domain has
been claimed before we direct `kcert` to try provisioning a certificate,
which will otherwise 404.
@knative-prow-robot knative-prow-robot added the cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CLA. label Oct 5, 2021
@knative-prow-robot knative-prow-robot added size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. area/API API objects and controllers labels Oct 5, 2021
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 5, 2021

Codecov Report

❗ No coverage uploaded for pull request base (release-0.23@ef097d0). Click here to learn what that means.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@               Coverage Diff               @@
##             release-0.23   #12085   +/-   ##
===============================================
  Coverage                ?   87.72%           
===============================================
  Files                   ?      191           
  Lines                   ?     9215           
  Branches                ?        0           
===============================================
  Hits                    ?     8084           
  Misses                  ?      877           
  Partials                ?      254           

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update ef097d0...09c5e2f. Read the comment docs.

@dprotaso
Copy link
Member

dprotaso commented Oct 7, 2021

/retest

@dprotaso
Copy link
Member

dprotaso commented Oct 7, 2021

#12117 landed that should unblock

/retest

@dprotaso
Copy link
Member

dprotaso commented Oct 7, 2021

/approve
/lgtm

@knative-prow-robot knative-prow-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 7, 2021
@knative-prow-robot
Copy link
Contributor Author

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: dprotaso, knative-prow-robot

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@knative-prow-robot knative-prow-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Oct 7, 2021
@knative-prow-robot knative-prow-robot merged commit ce57365 into knative:release-0.23 Oct 7, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. area/API API objects and controllers cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CLA. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants