Skip to content

fix for OCPBUGS-55135: userDataSecret.name should be a Required value on AWS #1399

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Aug 12, 2025
Merged

fix for OCPBUGS-55135: userDataSecret.name should be a Required value on AWS #1399

Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
b80bdd5
fix for OCPBUGS-55135: userDataSecret.name should be a Required value…
germanparente Aug 4, 2025
403c9cb
fix (reviewed) for OCPBUGS-55135: userDataSecret.name should be a Req…
germanparente Aug 5, 2025
cc136d1
fix (reviewed) for OCPBUGS-55135: userDataSecret.name should be a Req…
germanparente Aug 7, 2025
dae7665
fix (reviewed) for OCPBUGS-55135: userDataSecret.name should be a Req…
germanparente Aug 7, 2025
ef5d3f2
Adding unit test for providerSpec.userDataSecret.name
germanparente Aug 8, 2025
c25f257
Update pkg/webhooks/machine_webhook.go
germanparente Aug 8, 2025
1682aa6
Update pkg/webhooks/machine_webhook_test.go
germanparente Aug 8, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
14 changes: 6 additions & 8 deletions pkg/webhooks/machine_webhook.go
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -615,6 +615,8 @@ func (a awsDefaulter) defaultAWS(m *machinev1beta1.Machine, config *admissionCon

if providerSpec.UserDataSecret == nil {
providerSpec.UserDataSecret = &corev1.LocalObjectReference{Name: defaultUserDataSecret}
} else if providerSpec.UserDataSecret.Name == "" {
providerSpec.UserDataSecret.Name = defaultUserDataSecret
}

if providerSpec.CredentialsSecret == nil {
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -723,14 +725,10 @@ func validateAWS(m *machinev1beta1.Machine, config *admissionConfig) (bool, []st
)
}

if providerSpec.UserDataSecret == nil {
errs = append(
errs,
field.Required(
field.NewPath("providerSpec", "userDataSecret"),
"expected providerSpec.userDataSecret to be populated",
),
)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I suspect we still want this, and the new validation. Though looking at the new defaulting, can we ever get here?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks @JoelSpeed
My understanding was that there's a test that is checking that we can remove completely:

userDataSecret:
name: xxxxx

That's why I have switched to validate only that the name cannot be empty if the sctructure exists that is what the ocpbugs states as improvement.

If I re-add those lines and there's a test removing the full userDataSecret information, we will have the failure.

if providerSpec.UserDataSecret != nil {
if providerSpec.UserDataSecret.Name == "" {
errs = append(errs, field.Required(field.NewPath("providerSpec", "userDataSecret", "name"), "name must be provided"))
}
}

if providerSpec.CredentialsSecret == nil {
Expand Down