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

Make ResourceRef in PipelineResourceBinding consistent with TaskRun #1497

Merged

Conversation

vdemeester
Copy link
Member

Changes

In TaskRun, TaskRef can be nil, which was not the case for
PipelineResourceBinding (and ResourceRef). This fixes that by making
the two consistent.

Very similar to #1495

Signed-off-by: Vincent Demeester vdemeest@redhat.com

Submitter Checklist

These are the criteria that every PR should meet, please check them off as you
review them:

See the contribution guide for more details.

Double check this list of stuff that's easy to miss:

Reviewer Notes

If API changes are included, additive changes must be approved by at least two OWNERS and backwards incompatible changes must be approved by more than 50% of the OWNERS, and they must first be added in a backwards compatible way.

@googlebot googlebot added the cla: yes Trying to make the CLA bot happy with ppl from different companies work on one commit label Oct 30, 2019
@tekton-robot tekton-robot added the size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. label Oct 30, 2019
In TaskRun, TaskRef can be nil, which was not the case for
PipelineResourceBinding (and ResourceRef). This fixes that by making
the two consistent.

Signed-off-by: Vincent Demeester <vdemeest@redhat.com>
@vdemeester vdemeester force-pushed the taskref-resourceref-consistency branch from 97e5166 to 7ba0cd7 Compare October 30, 2019 10:09
@tekton-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: dibyom

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

@tekton-robot tekton-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Oct 30, 2019
@vdemeester
Copy link
Member Author

/test pull-tekton-pipeline-integration-tests

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Oct 30, 2019

/lgtm

@vdemeester
Copy link
Member Author

/test pull-tekton-pipeline-integration-tests

@bobcatfish
Copy link
Collaborator

I1030 15:45:34.852] ERROR: tests timed out
I1030 15:45:34.853] >> Checking test results for taskrun
I1030 15:45:35.305] ERROR: test poll-for-content-run=SucceededUnknown but should be succeededtrue
I1030 15:45:35.305] ERROR: test send-cloud-event=SucceededFalse but should be succeededtrue
I1030 15:45:35.305] ERROR: one or more YAML tests failed

🤔

@vdemeester
Copy link
Member Author

/hold
Might be a legit failure… got twice the same error…

@tekton-robot tekton-robot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Oct 30, 2019
@vdemeester
Copy link
Member Author

/test pull-tekton-pipeline-integration-tests

@vdemeester
Copy link
Member Author

/hold cancel

@tekton-robot tekton-robot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Oct 31, 2019
@vdemeester
Copy link
Member Author

/test pull-tekton-pipeline-integration-tests

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. cla: yes Trying to make the CLA bot happy with ppl from different companies work on one commit lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants