Skip to content

Conversation

@mdnfiras
Copy link

@mdnfiras mdnfiras commented Dec 18, 2025

Description

Kustomize fails to install the operator resources in a custom namespace (i.e vitess namespace):

kustomize build failed: namespace transformation produces ID conflict: [{"apiVersion":"v1","kind":"ServiceAccount","metadata":{"annotations":{"internal.config.kubernetes.io/previousKinds":"ServiceAccount","internal.config.kubernetes.io/previousNames":"vitess-operator","internal.config.kubernetes.io/previousNamespaces":"example"},"name":"vitess-operator","namespace":"vitess"}} {"apiVersion":"v1","kind":"ServiceAccount","metadata":{"annotations":{"internal.config.kubernetes.io/previousKinds":"ServiceAccount","internal.config.kubernetes.io/previousNames":"vitess-operator","internal.config.kubernetes.io/previousNamespaces":"default"},"name":"vitess-operator","namespace":"vitess"}}]

Related Issue(s)

Checklist

  • "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported to release branches
  • If this change is to be back-ported to previous releases, a justification is included in the PR description
  • Tests were added or are not required
  • Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on CI?
  • Documentation was added or is not required

Deployment Notes

No deployment notes.

AI Disclosure

No AI was used for this change.

@vitess-bot
Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Dec 18, 2025

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

  • Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
  • Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

  • Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

  • Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
  • New features should be documented.
  • There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
  • There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

  • Is this flag really necessary?
  • Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

  • Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
  • If the workflow needs to be marked as required, the maintainer team must be notified.

Backward compatibility

  • Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
  • Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
  • RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
  • If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from vitess-operator and arewefastyet, if used there.
  • vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.

@vitess-bot vitess-bot bot added NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says labels Dec 18, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v24.0.0 milestone Dec 18, 2025
@vitess-bot
Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Dec 18, 2025

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

  • Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
  • Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

  • Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

  • Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
  • New features should be documented.
  • There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
  • There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

  • Is this flag really necessary?
  • Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

  • Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
  • If the workflow needs to be marked as required, the maintainer team must be notified.

Backward compatibility

  • Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
  • Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
  • RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
  • If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from vitess-operator and arewefastyet, if used there.
  • vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.

@mattlord mattlord removed NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required labels Dec 18, 2025
@mattlord
Copy link
Member

@mdnfiras can you please create an issue with a test case describing how to repeat the failure you saw?

@mdnfiras
Copy link
Author

Hi @mattlord
I created the issue: #19054

@mattlord
Copy link
Member

mattlord commented Dec 18, 2025

@mdnfiras it looks like the vtop_example tests are now failing. Also, just FYI, the operator lives here and if indeed changes are necessary here then we should sync things up there: https://github.com/planetscale/vitess-operator/tree/main

@mattlord mattlord added Type: Bug Component: Examples Component: Operator Vtop related issues and removed NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request labels Dec 18, 2025
@mdnfiras
Copy link
Author

mdnfiras commented Dec 19, 2025

I added back the namespace reference in the ClusterRoleBinding resource to fix the latest vtop_example job error:

The ClusterRoleBinding "vitess-operator" is invalid: subjects[0].namespace: Required value

I tested with Kustomize, Kustomize still can override this namespace reference if a custom namespace is used.

Copy link
Member

@mattlord mattlord left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Seems fine to me. Thanks, @mdnfiras ! ❤️

It does seem like we might have the same problems with the operator itself? I'm not sure though:

That's my only concern. I'm not sure what unintended/unwanted side effects these changes may have...

@mdnfiras
Copy link
Author

Should I implement the same changes in repo planetscale/vitess-operator?

@mattlord
Copy link
Member

mattlord commented Dec 19, 2025

Should I implement the same changes in repo planetscale/vitess-operator?

@mdnfiras could you please open a PR there to make the equivalent changes? The tests that run in the CI will give us a much better signal as to whether or not there are any unexpected/unintended side effects. Thank you! ❤️

@mdnfiras
Copy link
Author

mdnfiras commented Dec 19, 2025

Opened PR planetscale/vitess-operator/pull/738

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

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Bug Report: Kustomize operator service account duplicate definition conflict

2 participants