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

Resource-Specific Sync in ArgoCD UI Does Not Limit to Selected Resource #21578

Open
3 tasks done
pikilisaikiran opened this issue Jan 20, 2025 · 3 comments · May be fixed by #21587
Open
3 tasks done

Resource-Specific Sync in ArgoCD UI Does Not Limit to Selected Resource #21578

pikilisaikiran opened this issue Jan 20, 2025 · 3 comments · May be fixed by #21587
Labels
bug Something isn't working component:ui User interfaces bugs and enhancements

Comments

@pikilisaikiran
Copy link

Checklist:

  • I've searched in the docs and FAQ for my answer: https://bit.ly/argocd-faq.
  • I've included steps to reproduce the bug.
  • I've pasted the output of argocd version.

Describe the bug

When syncing an application in the ArgoCD UI, it defaults to selecting all resources, which is expected behavior. However, when selecting a specific resource (e.g., a pod) and clicking the sync option available for that resource, it still selects all resources instead of only the selected one.

To Reproduce

  1. Open the ArgoCD UI.
  2. Navigate to an application that contains multiple resources.
  3. Select a specific resource (e.g., a pod).
  4. Click the sync option displayed for that resource.
  5. Notice that all resources in the application are selected, not just the chosen resource.

Expected behavior

When selecting a resource (e.g., a pod) in the ArgoCD UI and initiating a sync from the resource-specific sync option, only the selected resource should be synced. Other resources should remain unaffected unless explicitly selected.

Screenshots

Image
Above image shows the sync option when selected a resource (pod).

but it's selecting all the resources of the application when clicked on it
Image

Version

2025/01/20 17:40:52 maxprocs: Leaving GOMAXPROCS=8: CPU quota undefined
argocd: v2.13.0+347f221
  BuildDate: 2024-11-04T12:29:51Z
  GitCommit: 347f221adba5599ef4d5f12ee572b2c17d01db4d
  GitTreeState: clean
  GoVersion: go1.22.8
  Compiler: gc
  Platform: linux/amd64
argocd-server: v2.13.0+347f221
@pikilisaikiran pikilisaikiran added the bug Something isn't working label Jan 20, 2025
@linghaoSu linghaoSu linked a pull request Jan 21, 2025 that will close this issue
14 tasks
@crenshaw-dev
Copy link
Member

My feeling is that the "sync" button should be hidden for resources that are not managed via git. "Syncing" a child resource doesn't really make sense.

@crenshaw-dev crenshaw-dev added the component:ui User interfaces bugs and enhancements label Jan 21, 2025
@pikilisaikiran
Copy link
Author

That’s a valid point, and hiding the "sync" button for unmanaged resources could indeed simplify things.

However, since we already have the option to select/unselect multiple resources during application sync and a selective sync feature in place, I feel that the "sync" button on a child resource could leverage this functionality. It could initiate a selective sync for only that specific resource instead of syncing all resources. This would make the UI more intuitive and align with the expectations of selective resource management.

@crenshaw-dev
Copy link
Member

We do have a selective sync feature, and you can select which resources you would like to sync. My concern is that child resources are never in that list, because they are not resources that can be synced. That's why, when you click the three dots on a child resource node in the resource tree, there's no "Sync" option in the dropdown. I think the resource detail panel should mirror that design.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working component:ui User interfaces bugs and enhancements
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants