Skip to content

Conversation

@blublinsky
Copy link
Contributor

Description

Type of change

  • [ x] Refactor
  • New feature
  • Bug fix
  • CVE fix
  • Optimization
  • Documentation Update
  • Configuration Update
  • Bump-up dependent library

Related Tickets & Documents

Checklist before requesting a review

  • I have performed a self-review of my code.
  • PR has passed all pre-merge test jobs.
  • If it is a core feature, I have added thorough tests.

Testing

  • Please provide detailed steps to perform tests related to this code change.
  • How were the fix/results from this change verified? Please provide relevant screenshots or results.

continue
}
// Use consistent path structure: /etc/mcp/headers/<secretName>/header
headerValue = path.Join(utils.MCPHeadersMountRoot, header.ValueFrom.SecretRef.Name, utils.MCPSECRETDATAPATH)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

would it be better to let user configure which key in the secret is the header?
they may prefer host multiple header values in the same secret.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ideally yes, but can be more complex. I would preffer to keep it simple for now. Do not expect to have many MCP servers of this type

.PHONY: manifests
manifests: controller-gen ## Generate WebhookConfiguration, ClusterRole and CustomResourceDefinition objects.
$(CONTROLLER_GEN) rbac:roleName=manager-role crd webhook paths="./..." output:crd:artifacts:config=config/crd/bases
$(CONTROLLER_GEN) rbac:roleName=manager-role crd:allowDangerousTypes=true webhook paths="./..." output:crd:artifacts:config=config/crd/bases
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lol which type is dangerous?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I have no idea. This is generated

@raptorsun
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm

looks good.
to coordinate with @xrajesh working on the current release.

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. and removed lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. labels Jan 23, 2026
@openshift-ci
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Jan 23, 2026

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please ask for approval from raptorsun. For more information see the Code Review Process.

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

Details 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

@raptorsun
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 23, 2026
@xrajesh
Copy link
Contributor

xrajesh commented Jan 23, 2026

/hold
Until release

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Jan 23, 2026
@openshift-ci
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Jan 23, 2026

@blublinsky: all tests passed!

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Details

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants