Fix conflict between dangerousCapabilities and insecureCapabilities #866
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Fairwinds Insights CI Report✅ No new Action Items detected! |
|
|
ceb56a0 to
e49dd40
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR fixes an issue where the mutation for
dangerousCapabilitiesinterferes with the mutation forinsecureCapabilitiesChecklist
Description
What's the goal of this PR?
What changes did you make?
Make mutation for dangerousCapabilities more specific
What alternative solution should we consider, if any?
There's a larger issue where mutations run in a non-deterministic order. There's also no defense against mutations doing conflicting or even opposite things (e.g. one might set cpu limits, and another remove cpu limits).