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

[HAMMER] [hammer only] Podify openidc hammer #296

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

jvlcek
Copy link
Member

@jvlcek jvlcek commented Jun 15, 2018

Note: This is a hammer only PR

This is the hammer version of the updates made to master in PR 251

- auth-type: openid-connect
- new auth config parameters:
  o HTTPD_AUTH_OIDC_PROVIDER_METADATA_URL oidc-provider-metadata-url
  o HTTPD_AUTH_OIDC_CLIENT_ID oidc-client-id
  o HTTPD_AUTH_OIDC_CLIENT_SECRET oidc-client-secret
@jvlcek
Copy link
Member Author

jvlcek commented Jun 15, 2018

@abellotti Please review.

I've tested on OpenShift

@miq-bot miq-bot changed the title [hammer only] Podify openidc hammer [HAMMER] [hammer only] Podify openidc hammer Jun 15, 2018
@carbonin
Copy link
Member

Why is there a HAMMER specific PR for this? Looks like it would be a clean cherry-pick as it doesn't change the images. @simaishi, what do you think?

@miq-bot
Copy link
Member

miq-bot commented Jun 15, 2018

Checked commit jvlcek@67c8ced with ruby 2.3.3, rubocop 0.52.1, haml-lint 0.20.0, and yamllint 1.10.0
2 files checked, 1 offense detected

**

  • 💣 💥 🔥 🚒 - Linter/Yaml - missing config files

@simaishi
Copy link
Contributor

simaishi commented Jun 15, 2018

Yeah.. if the change is identical, we should use the master PR (plus README change which exists in this PR but doesn't in master PR).

@jvlcek
Copy link
Member Author

jvlcek commented Jun 15, 2018

Running the below commands show a differences:

mac% git diff hammer master templates/miq-template-ext-db.yaml

and

mac% git diff hammer master templates/miq-template.yaml

So unless I am doing something wrong these files differ between master and hammer and the changes in PR 251 would not cherry pick cleanly. So I created this separate hammer PR.

Am I missing something?

@simaishi
Copy link
Contributor

@jvlcek Even if the files are not identical, the changes can still be cherry-picked. This will be a clean cherry-pick, but I can also resolve minor conflicts while backporting if needed. What really matters is if the exact same diff can go to different branches.

@jvlcek
Copy link
Member Author

jvlcek commented Jun 18, 2018

Thank you @simaishi ! I needed this change staged in a branch so I could build hammer based docker images for my testing. So I thought I'd be making it easier my posting this PR. I'll close this it it's easier for you to simply cherry pick #251

@jvlcek jvlcek closed this Jun 18, 2018
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.

4 participants