You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
KubernetesExecutor: let each team connect to its own cluster #74844
KubernetesExecutor reads the settings it uses to connect to a cluster (in_cluster, config_file, cluster_context, verify_ssl, ssl_ca_cert) from the global [kubernetes_executor] section, even in multi-team mode. Namespace, pod template and the other pod settings are team-scoped, but every team connects to the same cluster. The client_factory and async_client_factory settings (#73014) can be set per team, but the factory is called with no arguments, so it can't tell which team it's building a client for.
This also affects KubernetesExecutor subclasses that bring their own client factory, such as AwsEksExecutor (#74399). The only way for a subclass to install its factory is through the [kubernetes_executor] client_factory setting, so a plain KubernetesExecutor in the same scope (both global, or the same team) picks it up too and connects to the subclass's cluster.
Proposed change: build the executor's clients with the team name, so the connection settings resolve per team and a factory is told which team it's for. Let a subclass declare its client factory on the class rather than through config, and have the scheduler and the pod watcher use it.
Use case/motivation
Multi-team deployments where teams run tasks on different Kubernetes clusters, and deployments that run KubernetesExecutor next to a subclass with its own client factory, for example while moving from one to the other.
Activity
Refuse to start the EKS executor next to a KubernetesExecutor in the …
Refuse team-specific [aws_eks_executor] config instead of ignoring it
Prajwal7842 commentedon Oct 19, 2026
Hi @seanghaeli I would like to work on this issue, if you have not already started.
seanghaeli commentedon Oct 19, 2026
@Prajwal7842 sure, go ahead!