Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Are there plans to support dynamic configuration? #60

Open
saltbo opened this issue Jun 25, 2024 · 4 comments
Open

Are there plans to support dynamic configuration? #60

saltbo opened this issue Jun 25, 2024 · 4 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@saltbo
Copy link

saltbo commented Jun 25, 2024

I found there's some APIs, but just queries. Is there any plans to support create pipeline by the API?

@github-actions github-actions bot added the triage requires review label Jun 25, 2024
@bluebrown
Copy link
Owner

Hi, I personally dont need that, so its not planned on my end. What use case do you have for it?

@saltbo
Copy link
Author

saltbo commented Jul 2, 2024

We use it for our internal platform. There is a lot of ArgoCD Application. it was created by our platform API, so we want create the pipeline by our platfrom API too.

@bluebrown
Copy link
Owner

I think, technically everything for a basic write API should be in the code base, more or less. You could make a PR, perhaps.

It would be here https://github.com/bluebrown/kobold/blob/main/http/api/handler.go and here https://github.com/bluebrown/kobold/blob/main/store/model/config.query.sql.go, roughly.

This is using sqlc, so go generate should be invoked.

@bluebrown bluebrown added enhancement New feature or request and removed triage requires review labels Jul 2, 2024
@bluebrown
Copy link
Owner

bluebrown commented Jul 2, 2024

One thing to keep in mind is this:

if opts.Config != "" || opts.Confd != "" {

I decided, back then, to remove old configs and reapply them to the db, if a config file was provided. This is to prevent config drift (between file and database) All in all it may be still confusing but it was sufficient until now.

When we support dynamic config writes, this scenario has to be taken care of as well. It needs to make sense and yield no surprises for the user. Its a design choice.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants