Bug 1648973
Summary: | missed oauth_proxy environment variable | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | OpenShift Container Platform | Reporter: | Pedro Amoedo <pamoedom> | ||||
Component: | apiserver-auth | Assignee: | Matt Rogers <mrogers> | ||||
Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Anping Li <anli> | ||||
Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |||||
Priority: | unspecified | ||||||
Version: | 3.11.0 | CC: | anli, aos-bugs, mrogers, nagrawal, pamoedom, rmeggins, scheng, vlaad | ||||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||
Target Release: | 3.11.z | ||||||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||||||
OS: | Unspecified | ||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |||||
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
Last Closed: | 2019-06-17 14:16:30 UTC | Type: | Bug | ||||
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||
Embargoed: | |||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Pedro Amoedo
2018-11-12 15:54:58 UTC
You linked: https://github.com/openshift/oauth-proxy/issues/71 https://github.com/openshift/oauth-proxy/pull/96 Have you've determined that the PR fixes your issue, or it just looks like a similar problem? From your description that is not clear. Please provide some more detailed steps to reproduce along with oauth-proxy logs and configs. I'm reasigning this bugzilla to Auth group as per latest comment from Engineering in https://github.com/openshift/oauth-proxy/pull/96 @Sig-Auth team, can you please review that PR? Thanks in advance. I requested a change to the patch, once that is updated I'll merge it. (In reply to Matt Rogers from comment #4) > I requested a change to the patch, once that is updated I'll merge it. Hi Matt, I've seen also the update in the pull request but the customer has told me that he is unable to modify the code as requested and is asking for your help on that. My apologies, I would do it myself but I don't have the full picture nor the knowledge on this code. Thanks in advance. Hi all, any update here? Sorry about the delay, I asked Pat in the PR if he would like me to push the fix through in a different PR if he has not had the time to get back to it. (I asked him to just rename the function he was modifying) (In reply to Matt Rogers from comment #7) > Sorry about the delay, I asked Pat in the PR if he would like me to push the > fix through in a different PR if he has not had the time to get back to it. > (I asked him to just rename the function he was modifying) AFAIK, he tried to do the first requested modification of setting the transport proxy outside of setCA() but no success and the automated tests failed as you can see in the PR, so back in Dec he asked for your help on that part via the case. Is this something you can easily solve on his behalf or does it need to be modified directly by him? Thanks in advance. (In reply to Pedro Amoedo from comment #8) > (In reply to Matt Rogers from comment #7) > > Sorry about the delay, I asked Pat in the PR if he would like me to push the > > fix through in a different PR if he has not had the time to get back to it. > > (I asked him to just rename the function he was modifying) > > AFAIK, he tried to do the first requested modification of setting the > transport proxy outside of setCA() but no success and the automated tests > failed as you can see in the PR, so back in Dec he asked for your help on > that part via the case. > > Is this something you can easily solve on his behalf or does it need to be > modified directly by him? > > Thanks in advance. We had discussed this previously in the PR, as a result of the issue he pointed out about my suggested change, I requested that he just rename the function so it's clear that the function is now doing more than only setting the CA. So it's just the function rename that I was waiting on him to do. (In reply to Matt Rogers from comment #9) > (In reply to Pedro Amoedo from comment #8) > > (In reply to Matt Rogers from comment #7) > > > Sorry about the delay, I asked Pat in the PR if he would like me to push the > > > fix through in a different PR if he has not had the time to get back to it. > > > (I asked him to just rename the function he was modifying) > > > > AFAIK, he tried to do the first requested modification of setting the > > transport proxy outside of setCA() but no success and the automated tests > > failed as you can see in the PR, so back in Dec he asked for your help on > > that part via the case. > > > > Is this something you can easily solve on his behalf or does it need to be > > modified directly by him? > > > > Thanks in advance. > > We had discussed this previously in the PR, as a result of the issue he > pointed out about my suggested change, I requested that he just rename the > function so it's clear that the function is now doing more than only setting > the CA. So it's just the function rename that I was waiting on him to do. ACK, I will update the case to see if he can push that or is waiting on another thing, thanks Matt. (In reply to Pedro Amoedo from comment #10) > (In reply to Matt Rogers from comment #9) > > (In reply to Pedro Amoedo from comment #8) > > > (In reply to Matt Rogers from comment #7) > > > > Sorry about the delay, I asked Pat in the PR if he would like me to push the > > > > fix through in a different PR if he has not had the time to get back to it. > > > > (I asked him to just rename the function he was modifying) > > > > > > AFAIK, he tried to do the first requested modification of setting the > > > transport proxy outside of setCA() but no success and the automated tests > > > failed as you can see in the PR, so back in Dec he asked for your help on > > > that part via the case. > > > > > > Is this something you can easily solve on his behalf or does it need to be > > > modified directly by him? > > > > > > Thanks in advance. > > > > We had discussed this previously in the PR, as a result of the issue he > > pointed out about my suggested change, I requested that he just rename the > > function so it's clear that the function is now doing more than only setting > > the CA. So it's just the function rename that I was waiting on him to do. > > ACK, I will update the case to see if he can push that or is waiting on > another thing, thanks Matt. Hi again Matt, the customer has finally pushed the requested modification into the PR [1], please check it when you have a chance, thanks. [1] - https://github.com/openshift/oauth-proxy/pull/96 Created attachment 1580630 [details]
kiban failed
|