Use trigger instead of triggerRef
#366
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
We use the syntax `somethingRef` in several fields on our specs because we want to be able to use ducktyping down the line to switch out other types (see tektoncd#238). However `triggerRef` is a bit weird because: - If the type is `manual`, there is no actual CRD to reference - We don't know what other sorts of types we might need (e.g. when created via events) - It was inconsistent b/w TaskRun and PipelineRun (TaskRun had an extra level of indirection) This commit applies @sebgoa's suggestion to simplify this to just `trigger`. This was part of the discussion in tektoncd#320 about simplifying the interfaace.
knative-prow-robot
added
the
approved
knative-prow-robot
added
the
size/L
This is consistent with `TaskRun` which also has a `Trigger` field.
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: bobcatfish, vdemeester 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 |
|
Looks like the integration tests actually failed for this: |
|
@bobcatfish ahhhh 😅 that's why some PR failed afterwards 🙃 |
|
😅 |
bobcatfish
added a commit
to bobcatfish/pipeline
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 8, 2019
In tektoncd#366 I tried to rename the trigger field in a `PipelineRun.Spec` from `PipelineTrigger` to just `Trigger` to be in line with the similar `Trigger` field in `TaskRun.Spec` BUT I MISSED SOME OF THEM 😭😭😭 Fixes tektoncd#366
This was referenced Jan 8, 2019
pradeepitm12
pushed a commit
to pradeepitm12/pipeline
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 28, 2021
The crashloop is due to 2 reasons: 1. We deprecated and removed the `params` field from the EventListener. So, when the reconciler tries to unmarshal an old EventListener, it fails since it cannot parse the deleted `params` field. 2. The new event listener sink image expects `/etc/config-logging` to be mounted. However the reconciler code does not add the `volumeMount` for any existing sink deployments. So, the new pods go into a crashloop To fix this, this commit does the following: 1. Add back the `params` field. Also, update the mutating webhook to delete any set `params` field in existing eventlisteners. 2. Add volumeMount for existing deployments if not present. - Co-Authored-by: Brandon Walker Fixes tektoncd#366 Signed-off-by: Dibyo Mukherjee <dibyo@google.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
We use the syntax
somethingRefin several fields on our specs becausewe want to be able to use ducktyping down the line to switch out other
types (see #238).
However
triggerRefis a bit weird because:manual, there is no actual CRD to referencecreated via events)
level of indirection)
This commit applies @sebgoa's suggestion to simplify this to just
trigger.This was part of the discussion in #320 about simplifying the
interface.