do not overwirte user added labels added to the deployment template #183

laurafitzgerald · 2025-02-06T15:50:05Z

Closes #176

Verification

Checkout locally.
Run make run
kubectl edit deployment
Add label to spec.template.labels something like useradded: label
Verify that the deployment spec.template.labels includes the following labels

app: limitador
limitador-resource: limitador-sample
useradded: label

codecov-commenter · 2025-02-06T15:54:27Z

⚠️ Please install the to ensure uploads and comments are reliably processed by Codecov.

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 86.36364% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 82.76%. Comparing base (515d57b) to head (470589b).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
pkg/helpers/helpers.go	78.57%	2 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #183      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   83.71%   82.76%   -0.96%     
==========================================
  Files          18       18              
  Lines        1210     1230      +20     
==========================================
+ Hits         1013     1018       +5     
- Misses        150      160      +10     
- Partials       47       52       +5

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration	`76.42% <54.54%> (-1.43%)`	⬇️
unit	`61.31% <65.00%> (-2.34%)`	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Components	Coverage Δ
api/v1alpha1 (u)	`100.00% <ø> (ø)`
pkg/helpers (u)	`82.35% <78.57%> (-1.44%)`	⬇️
pkg/log (u)	`93.18% <ø> (ø)`
pkg/reconcilers (u)	`73.61% <100.00%> (+0.34%)`	⬆️
pkg/limitador (u)	`97.65% <100.00%> (ø)`
controllers (i)	`72.15% <100.00%> (-2.92%)`	⬇️
pkg/upgrades	`∅ <ø> (∅)`

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
controllers/limitador_controller.go	`70.48% <100.00%> (-1.90%)`	⬇️
pkg/limitador/k8s_objects.go	`95.87% <100.00%> (ø)`
pkg/reconcilers/deployment.go	`95.97% <100.00%> (+0.11%)`	⬆️
pkg/helpers/helpers.go	`83.87% <78.57%> (-4.37%)`	⬇️

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

pkg/reconcilers/deployment.go

pkg/limitador/k8s_objects_test.go

eguzki · 2025-02-10T17:33:01Z

Propagate Limitador CR labels to deployment labels as well here https://github.com/Kuadrant/limitador-operator/blob/main/pkg/limitador/k8s_objects.go#L77

eguzki

Looking very nice

pkg/reconcilers/deployment.go

pkg/limitador/k8s_objects.go

pkg/helpers/helpers.go

pkg/limitador/k8s_objects.go

pkg/helpers/helpers.go

KevFan

Verified and working as expected, looks good to me 👍

eguzki · 2025-02-19T14:03:22Z

pkg/helpers/helpers.go

@@ -33,3 +33,19 @@ func IsObjectTaggedToDelete(obj client.Object) bool {
 	annotation, ok := annotations[DeleteTagAnnotation]
 	return ok && annotation == "true"
 }
+
+func MergeMapStringString(modified *bool, existing *map[string]string, desired map[string]string) {
+	if *existing == nil {


add extra guard

if existing == nil { // early return, as there is no ref to initialize map return }

I've added this check but as part of the testing of the changes I've noticed a problem. If the existing map pointer is nil and we don't add that, then we never are able to add the desired labels to the existing one which is the one that we use in the cluster. If the user removes the label map and as such there is nothing there we don't have an opportunity to put that back. In the case of the deployment object meta, this is possible.

when testing live against k8s, removing the label map results in the default ones being added back in so in this case there doesn't appear to be a nil pointer. in this case i don't know if we need this extra guard rail. wdyt?

I'm good with not neeing this 👍

pkg/helpers/helpers.go

pkg/limitador/k8s_objects.go

pkg/reconcilers/deployment.go

eguzki

almost done. Good job!

I am a bit confused. From the last community call I understood you would be implementing the option 2 (labels will be externally added and not removed). However, I see that option 1 is being implemented here, so Limitador CR labels are propagated to the deployment, not to other resources though.

laurafitzgerald · 2025-03-06T15:07:06Z

pkg/limitador/k8s_objects.go

@@ -219,8 +218,8 @@ func ValidatePDB(pdb *policyv1.PodDisruptionBudget) error {

 func Labels(limitador *limitadorv1alpha1.Limitador) map[string]string {
 	return map[string]string{
-		"app":                "limitador",
-		"limitador-resource": limitador.ObjectMeta.Name,
+		helpers.LabelKeyApp:               "limitador",


we may not need this change.

…te objectmeta Signed-off-by: Laura Fitzgerald <[email protected]>

KevFan

Verified and changes looks good to me! 💯

laurafitzgerald · 2025-03-12T14:17:40Z

@eguzki i'll wait for your approval before adding this to the merge queue.

laurafitzgerald force-pushed the label-propagation branch from d496720 to 6530652 Compare February 6, 2025 15:51

laurafitzgerald force-pushed the label-propagation branch 4 times, most recently from c77999c to d142de1 Compare February 7, 2025 09:35

laurafitzgerald requested review from eguzki and adam-cattermole February 7, 2025 09:35

laurafitzgerald force-pushed the label-propagation branch 3 times, most recently from bd6f1d8 to 04eaa19 Compare February 7, 2025 10:55

laurafitzgerald requested review from KevFan and removed request for adam-cattermole February 7, 2025 10:55

laurafitzgerald force-pushed the label-propagation branch from 04eaa19 to 39ae954 Compare February 7, 2025 10:57

laurafitzgerald commented Feb 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

pkg/reconcilers/deployment.go Show resolved Hide resolved

laurafitzgerald marked this pull request as ready for review February 7, 2025 11:02

maleck13 reviewed Feb 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

pkg/limitador/k8s_objects_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

laurafitzgerald force-pushed the label-propagation branch 2 times, most recently from b792015 to 2f46bc6 Compare February 10, 2025 09:57

eguzki reviewed Feb 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

pkg/reconcilers/deployment.go Show resolved Hide resolved

laurafitzgerald force-pushed the label-propagation branch from 2f46bc6 to c84accc Compare February 11, 2025 11:35

KevFan reviewed Feb 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

pkg/limitador/k8s_objects.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

laurafitzgerald force-pushed the label-propagation branch 2 times, most recently from 18b0c08 to 8f40569 Compare February 12, 2025 11:55

KevFan reviewed Feb 13, 2025

View reviewed changes

pkg/helpers/helpers.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

laurafitzgerald force-pushed the label-propagation branch 2 times, most recently from 97168ec to 519d065 Compare February 13, 2025 14:40

laurafitzgerald commented Feb 13, 2025

View reviewed changes

pkg/limitador/k8s_objects.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

laurafitzgerald force-pushed the label-propagation branch from 519d065 to 10cf420 Compare February 13, 2025 15:05

KevFan reviewed Feb 14, 2025

View reviewed changes

pkg/helpers/helpers.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

laurafitzgerald force-pushed the label-propagation branch from 10cf420 to 9b6b9d0 Compare February 14, 2025 14:04

KevFan previously approved these changes Feb 19, 2025

View reviewed changes

eguzki requested changes Feb 19, 2025

View reviewed changes