Skip to content

fix: reconcile private bucket policies and IP family changes - #235

Merged
GatewayJ merged 2 commits into
rustfs:mainfrom
GatewayJ:fix/pr-233-review-findings
Sep 4, 2026
Merged

fix: reconcile private bucket policies and IP family changes#235
GatewayJ merged 2 commits into
rustfs:mainfrom
GatewayJ:fix/pr-233-review-findings

Conversation

@GatewayJ

@GatewayJ GatewayJ commented Sep 4, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Type of Change

  • New Feature
  • Bug Fix
  • Documentation
  • Performance Improvement
  • Test/CI
  • Refactor
  • Other:

Related Issues

Follow-up to #233.

Summary of Changes

  • Distinguish omitted bucket anonymous access from explicit Private, and delete only bucket policies proven to be operator-managed.
  • Preserve ipFamilies ordering in the Tenant CRD and safely recreate managed Services when the primary IP family changes.
  • Add S3 policy deletion, reconciliation coverage, CRD assertions, upgrade documentation, and changelog entries.

Checklist

  • I have read and followed the CONTRIBUTING.md guidelines
  • Passed make pre-commit (fmt-check + clippy + test + console-lint + console-fmt-check)
  • Added/updated necessary tests
  • Documentation updated (if needed)
  • CHANGELOG.md updated under [Unreleased] (if user-visible change)
  • CI/CD passed (if applicable)

Impact

  • Breaking change (CRD/API compatibility)
  • Requires doc/config/deployment update
  • Other impact: changing the primary IP family briefly interrupts Tenant Service endpoints while managed Services are recreated.

Verification

make pre-commit

Additional Notes

Apply the updated Tenant CRD before upgrading the controller. Existing bucket policies without matching operator ownership status are preserved and reported as conflicts instead of being deleted.


Thank you for your contribution! Please ensure your PR follows the community standards (CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md) and sign the CLA if this is your first contribution.

@chatgpt-codex-connector

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Sep 4, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review Status Commit Review trigger
📝 Code Review Completed 2026-09-04T11:56:00.290460Z 1dbb4a7 Manual request
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

@GatewayJ

GatewayJ commented Sep 4, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@codex

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 1dbb4a780e

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

Comment thread src/reconcile/phases.rs Outdated
Comment thread src/reconcile/provisioning.rs
Comment thread src/types/v1alpha1/provisioning.rs Outdated
@GatewayJ
GatewayJ added this pull request to the merge queue Sep 4, 2026
Merged via the queue into rustfs:main with commit 3b76bac Sep 4, 2026
3 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant