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

operator/ingress: make .spec.endpointPublishingStrategy.type required #442

Merged

Conversation

ironcladlou
Copy link
Contributor

The .spec.endpointPublishingStrategy.type is intended to be required (and
that's how the field is persisted in 4.1). In the operator.openshift.io group,
fields are optional by default[1]. Use an explicit marker to maintain
compatibility.

[1] https://github.com/openshift/api/blob/master/operator/v1/doc.go

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. label Sep 25, 2019
@ironcladlou
Copy link
Contributor Author

cc @sttts @damemi @deads2k @Miciah

@@ -244,6 +244,7 @@ type EndpointPublishingStrategy struct {
// networking, and is not explicitly published. The user must manually publish
// the ingress controller.
// +unionDiscriminator
// +kubebuilder:validation:Required
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Elsewhere I see +kubebuilder:validation:Required paired with +required (I would guess for consistency across various tools), so we should probably use both markers here.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Fixed

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah, +required is for backwards compatibility/consistency. Both are supported

@ironcladlou
Copy link
Contributor Author

Followup to #440

The `.spec.endpointPublishingStrategy.type` is intended to be required (and
that's how the field is persisted in 4.1). In the operator.openshift.io group,
fields are optional by default[1]. Use an explicit marker to maintain
compatibility.

[1] https://github.com/openshift/api/blob/master/operator/v1/doc.go
@Miciah
Copy link
Contributor

Miciah commented Sep 25, 2019

/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Sep 25, 2019
@sttts
Copy link
Contributor

sttts commented Sep 25, 2019

/approve

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: ironcladlou, Miciah, sttts

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

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

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

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Sep 25, 2019
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit e39b0dc into openshift:master Sep 25, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants