Add a bit more logging at info level#130
Merged
Riscky merged 1 commit intochannable:masterfrom May 22, 2023
Merged
Conversation
Contributor
|
@OpsBotPrime merge |
Contributor
|
Pull request approved for merge by @Riscky, rebasing now. |
Contributor
|
Rebased as 5c48fdf, waiting for CI … |
Contributor
|
CI job 🟡 started. |
Contributor
|
@OpsBotPrime missed a webhook? |
Contributor
|
The build succeeded. |
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
I was trying to get things to run with the new Kubernetes authentication introduced in #122, but I ran into some issues. This additional logging helped me to diagnose the issue.
It’s a bit ugly to replicate the
getOptionsValue oLogLevel (cCliOptions context) <= Info, maybe it makes sense write small function for this.Off topic: the issue I was facing (writing this down here in case future visitors are facing the same issue). The policy associated with the role did not have permission to read
/sys/mounts. Vaultenv did not fail on this when it requested the mounts, but it caused it to make a request to/v1/secret/mypathinstead of/v1/secret/data/mypath. The additional logging helps diagnose this. The solution was to addto the policy associated with the role in Vault. Possibly Vaultenv could do some validation on the response there, I haven’t looked into it.