kubectl VS mkcert

Check https://github.com/kubernetes/kubectl/issues/151

I have read this issue, and up to now it seems not possible to change the kubectl context via an env var: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubectl/issues/1154

However, I would encourage people to take a look at what the code looks like before assuming the Go developer experience on this was positive. Bear in mind that's just the top level kubectl command and some helper functions, the subcommand definitions take up a several more files split into a few more packages. Then you're still not even done, because code that uses the parsed flags still has to redundantly check things that couldn't be enforced at the type level, something Go folks like to pretend is a good thing for some reason.

kubectl is for sure battle tested, but it involves very Kubernetes specific implementations and is going to be too complicated for the first pointer

> context.Background() is typically only used when one doesn’t care about the result. If you did care about the result, you should be passing the parent context to preserve the circuit breaker timeout in case the operation takes too long.

Not necessarily. You would use context.Background in a test situation. It's also commonly used for short-lived applications like a CLI invocation. You can see kubectl uses context.Background quite a lot: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubectl/search?q=context.backg...

> I think the level of pain you experience from mutable references in Rust depends on if you’re coming from an OOP or FP background. I have a FP background and so the patterns I use to build code already greatly restrict mutation. You can usually change code that updates data immutably (creating a new copy of it) with mutable code in rust because the control flow of your program already involves passing that new version back to the caller which also satisfies the borrow checker in most situations.

There has to be a better solution to needlessly copying data.

This is particularly useful for academic purposes, and makes somehow convinient to get the yaml template of k8s objects. I was looking for this as well due to an upcoming ckad test i have. Unfourtunately due to not being considered best practice the request for it was dismissed. https://github.com/kubernetes/kubectl/issues/1073

I see, apologies, I did misunderstand. This is actually a known race condition between kubectl (or even helm, or any Kube API client) issuing the requests to deploy CRs that depend on CRDs while those CRDs are still being installed on the API server. Simply put, kubectl makes these requests too quickly. There is no solution to this currently aside from deploying CRDs separately from the resources they expose. See this kubectl issue: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubectl/issues/1117, and there are some links in the comments to other issues echoing the same problem in helm and elsewhere.

Go add --no-really-all if you really want it: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubectl

You could take a look at how kubectl actually does it: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubectl/blob/master/pkg/cmd/label/label.go

The author mentions difficulties with HTTPS and trying stuff locally.

I've had some success with mkcert [1] to easily create certificates trusted by browsers, I can suggest to look into this. You are your own root CA, I think it can work without an internet connection.

[1] https://github.com/FiloSottile/mkcert/

Solution: mkcert – Your Zero-Configuration HTTPS Enabler Meet mkcert, a user-friendly, zero-configuration tool designed for creating locally-trusted development certificates. Find it on its GitHub page and follow the instructions tailored for your operating system. For Mac users employing Homebrew, simply execute the following commands in your terminal:

Well, Certifi does not ship with your company's certificates! So requesting internal services may come with additional painful extra steps! Also for a local development environment that uses mkcert for example!

My project, getlocalcert.net[1] may be the one you're thinking of.

Since I'm also building in this space, I'll give my perspective. Local certificate generation is complicated. If you spend the time, you can figure it out, but it's begging for a simpler solution. You can use tools like mkcert[2] for anything that's local to your machine. However, if you're already using ACME in production, maybe you'd prefer to use ACME locally? I think that's what Anchor offers, a unified approach.

There's a couple references in the Anchor blog about solving the distribution problem by building better tooling[3]. I'm eager to learn more, that's a tough nut to crack. My theory for getlocalcert is that the distribution problem is too difficult (for me) to solve, so I layer the tool on top of Let's Encrypt certificates instead. The end result for both tools is a trusted TLS certificate issued via ACME automation.

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36674224

2. https://github.com/FiloSottile/mkcert

3. https://blog.anchor.dev/the-acme-gap-introducing-anchor-part...

Looks like step-ca/step-cli [1] and mkcert [2] have been mentioned. Another related tool is XCA [3] - a gui tool to manage CAs and server/client TLS certificates. It takes off some of the tedium in using openssl cli directly. It also stores the certs and keys in an encrypted database. It doesn't solve the problem of getting the root CA certificate into the system store or of hosting the revocation list. I use XCA to create and store the root CA. Intermediate CAs signed with it are passed to other issuers like vault and step-issuer.

[1] https://smallstep.com/docs/step-ca/

[2] https://github.com/FiloSottile/mkcert

[3] https://hohnstaedt.de/xca/

We use mkcert for this, it works wonderfully.

https://github.com/FiloSottile/mkcert

mkcert: This is used to obtain a trusted TLS certificate with a custom domain name for your development machine. You can install mkcert on your development machine following the official instructions.