OCPBUGS-62611: Fix editing secrets with mixed text and binary data

[TheRealJon]

When a secret contained both text and binary values, the edit form would fail due to a runtime error. The stringData initialization was returning null when any binary field was detected, breaking text field handling.

Now binary fields are skipped during stringData initialization while text fields are preserved, allowing proper editing of mixed-type secrets.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[openshift-ci-robot]

@TheRealJon: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-62611, which is invalid:

• expected the bug to target the "4.21.0" version, but no target version was set

Comment /jira refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Jira bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

Details

In response to this:

When a secret contained both text and binary values, the edit form would fail due to a runtime error. The stringData initialization was returning null when any binary field was detected, breaking text field handling.

Now binary fields are skipped during stringData initialization while text fields are preserved, allowing proper editing of mixed-type secrets.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

A reduce callback in SecretFormWrapper.tsx previously returned null when encountering binary values, potentially corrupting the accumulator. The fix returns the accumulator unchanged for binary values instead of null, while preserving existing Base64 decoding logic for non-binary values.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Change Summary
Bug Fix in Binary Value Handling frontend/public/components/secrets/create-secret/SecretFormWrapper.tsx	Modified reduce callback to return accumulator unchanged when encountering binary values instead of returning null, preventing premature termination or corruption of the accumulation object.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes

• Verify the fix correctly handles binary values without side effects
• Confirm the change doesn't introduce regressions in decoding logic for non-binary values
• Check if test coverage exists for binary value scenarios in secret form handling

✨ Finishing touches

• 📝 Generate docstrings

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Cache: Disabled due to data retention organization setting

Knowledge base: Disabled due to Reviews -> Disable Knowledge Base setting

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 370e6b0 and 601c171.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• frontend/public/components/secrets/create-secret/SecretFormWrapper.tsx (1 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

📓 Path-based instructions (1)

**

⚙️ CodeRabbit configuration file

-Focus on major issues impacting performance, readability, maintainability and security. Avoid nitpicks and avoid verbosity.

Files:

• frontend/public/components/secrets/create-secret/SecretFormWrapper.tsx

🔇 Additional comments (1)

frontend/public/components/secrets/create-secret/SecretFormWrapper.tsx (1)

60-68: Critical fix correctly resolves runtime error.

The change on line 63 fixes a critical bug where returning null for binary values would corrupt the reduce accumulator, causing subsequent iterations to fail when attempting acc[key] = ... on line 65. Returning acc unchanged correctly skips binary entries while preserving text field decoding, enabling editing of secrets with mixed text and binary data.

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[TheRealJon]

/jira refresh

[openshift-ci-robot]

@TheRealJon: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-62611, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

• bug is open, matching expected state (open)
• bug target version (4.21.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.21.0)
• bug is in the state ASSIGNED, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @yapei

Details

In response to this:

/jira refresh

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[TheRealJon]

/retest

[jhadvig]

👍
/lgtm

[jhadvig]

/retest

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: jhadvig, TheRealJon

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• frontend/OWNERS [TheRealJon,jhadvig]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[TheRealJon]

/retest

[openshift-bot]

/jira refresh

The requirements for Jira bugs have changed (Jira issues linked to PRs on main branch need to target different OCP), recalculating validity.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@openshift-bot: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-62611, which is invalid:

• expected the bug to target either version "4.22." or "openshift-4.22.", but it targets "4.21.0" instead

Comment /jira refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Jira bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

Details

In response to this:

/jira refresh

The requirements for Jira bugs have changed (Jira issues linked to PRs on main branch need to target different OCP), recalculating validity.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[TheRealJon]

/jira refresh

[openshift-ci-robot]

@TheRealJon: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-62611, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

• bug is open, matching expected state (open)
• bug target version (4.22.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.22.0)
• bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @yapei

Details

In response to this:

/jira refresh

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[Leo6Leo]

/verified by @Leo6Leo

[openshift-ci-robot]

@Leo6Leo: This PR has been marked as verified by @Leo6Leo.

Details

In response to this:

/verified by @Leo6Leo

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[openshift-ci-robot]

/retest-required

Remaining retests: 0 against base HEAD 24830e3 and 2 for PR HEAD 601c171 in total

[openshift-ci-robot]

/retest-required

Remaining retests: 0 against base HEAD d00353d and 1 for PR HEAD 601c171 in total

[openshift-ci-robot]

/retest-required

Remaining retests: 0 against base HEAD 9c70ba0 and 0 for PR HEAD 601c171 in total

[openshift-ci-robot]

/hold

Revision 601c171 was retested 3 times: holding

[TheRealJon]

/retest

[logonoff]

/unhold
/retest

[openshift-ci]

@TheRealJon: all tests passed!

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Details

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@TheRealJon: Jira Issue Verification Checks: Jira Issue OCPBUGS-62611
✔️ This pull request was pre-merge verified.
✔️ All associated pull requests have merged.
✔️ All associated, merged pull requests were pre-merge verified.

Jira Issue OCPBUGS-62611 has been moved to the MODIFIED state and will move to the VERIFIED state when the change is available in an accepted nightly payload. 🕓

Details

In response to this:

When a secret contained both text and binary values, the edit form would fail due to a runtime error. The stringData initialization was returning null when any binary field was detected, breaking text field handling.

Now binary fields are skipped during stringData initialization while text fields are preserved, allowing proper editing of mixed-type secrets.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[openshift-merge-robot]

Fix included in accepted release 4.22.0-0.nightly-2026-01-14-031657

[TheRealJon]

/jira backport release-4.21
/jira backport release-4.20
/jira backport release-4.19

[openshift-ci-robot]

@TheRealJon: The following backport issues have been created:

• OCPBUGS-77251 for branch release-4.21

Queuing cherrypicks to the requested branches to be created after this PR merges:
/cherrypick release-4.21

Details

In response to this:

/jira backport release-4.21
/jira backport release-4.20
/jira backport release-4.19

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@TheRealJon: Missing required branches for backport chain:

• openshift-4.21 OR release-4.21,

Details

In response to this:

/jira backport release-4.21
/jira backport release-4.20
/jira backport release-4.19

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@TheRealJon: Missing required branches for backport chain:

• release-4.20 OR openshift-4.20,

Details

In response to this:

/jira backport release-4.21
/jira backport release-4.20
/jira backport release-4.19

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[openshift-cherrypick-robot]

@openshift-ci-robot: new pull request created: #16060

Details

In response to this:

@TheRealJon: The following backport issues have been created:

• OCPBUGS-77251 for branch release-4.21

Queuing cherrypicks to the requested branches to be created after this PR merges:
/cherrypick release-4.21

In response to this:

/jira backport release-4.21
/jira backport release-4.20
/jira backport release-4.19

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.