Commit graph

15 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Erin Call 7e24756ad8
Instantiate a Lint when cfg.Command is "lint" [#3] 2019-12-17 17:14:39 -08:00
Erin Call a6a2d6e6a3
Require a nonempty chart in Lint.Prepare [#3] 2019-12-17 17:01:22 -08:00
Erin Call a6b7e06bd2
Implement the debug flag in lint [#3] 2019-12-17 17:01:18 -08:00
Erin Call 51800c18d7
Implement the various values flags in lint [#3] 2019-12-17 17:01:11 -08:00
Erin Call 991bbf97b4
Create a Lint step [#3]
Still need global flags and checks for mandatory settings, but the basic
functionality is there.
2019-12-17 17:01:06 -08:00
Erin Call aa04830600
Populate DryRun when building an Upgrade step 2019-12-17 09:23:44 -08:00
Erin Call 1560c05100
Fail early if chart or release is missing 2019-12-16 17:02:56 -08:00
Erin Call e4fa70239e
Implement config flags for helm upgrade 2019-12-16 16:55:05 -08:00
Erin Call 13c663e906
Initialize kubernetes config on upgrade
This change revealed more about how the system needs to work, so there
are some supporting changes:

* helm.upgrade and helm.help are now vars rather than raw functions.
    This allows unit tests to target the "which step should we run"
    logic directly by comparing function pointers, rather than having to
    configure/prepare a fully-valid Plan and then infer the logic’s
    correctness based on the Plan’s state.
* configuration that's specific to kubeconfig initialization is now part
    of the InitKube struct rather than run.Config, since other steps
    shouldn’t need access to those settings (particularly the secrets).
* Step.Execute now receives a run.Config so it can log debug output.
2019-12-16 15:41:04 -08:00
Erin Call 4cbb4922fb
Implement the debug flag and help command
I'm vacillating about the choice to have separate Config structs in the
`helm` and `run` packages. I can't tell whether it's "good separation of
concerns" or "cumbersome and over-engineered." It seems appropriate at
the moment, though.
2019-12-10 15:33:50 -08:00
Erin Call 8d66036252
Brush all the lint off this code I wrote in a haze 2019-12-09 10:53:32 -08:00
Erin Call e3051ec72e
Replicate most of drone-helm's config 2019-12-09 09:58:42 -08:00
Erin Call 238ede6f9e
Actual drone-invokable helm commands 2019-12-05 14:35:25 -08:00
Erin Call e77f6842b9
Non-DI approach to the exec.Command mocking 2019-12-05 09:57:59 -08:00
Erin Call 990d1856d8
Very rough code that can helm install
The recommended way to test code that uses exec.Cmd involves setting up
a real exec.Cmd that invokes `go test` with additional arguments that
fire off a specially-constructed test that behaves the way the mocked-
out script would be expected to do. It's a sensible way to test exec.Cmd
itself, but for code that merely invokes it, I think it makes more sense
to use actual mocks.
2019-12-04 12:41:37 -08:00