TEP-0154: Enable concise resolver syntax - stage 1 #7845
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
tekton-robot
added
release-note
tekton-robot
added
the
size/XL
chitrangpatel
force-pushed
the
concise-resolver
branch
from
ecfa777
to
99b1c6f
Compare
tekton-robot
removed
the
needs-rebase
chitrangpatel
changed the title
|
The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
|
|
The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
|
chitrangpatel
force-pushed
the
concise-resolver
branch
from
4ef52f1
to
b191411
Compare
chitrangpatel
force-pushed
the
concise-resolver
branch
from
b191411
to
b7bd195
Compare
|
The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
|
|
The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
|
|
The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
|
chitrangpatel
force-pushed
the
concise-resolver
branch
from
b7bd195
to
72a29a6
Compare
|
The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
|
|
The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
|
chitrangpatel
force-pushed
the
concise-resolver
branch
from
72a29a6
to
4d90033
Compare
|
The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
|
|
The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
|
chitrangpatel
force-pushed
the
concise-resolver
branch
from
4d90033
to
88b0beb
Compare
|
The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
|
|
The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
|
|
/hold cancel |
tekton-robot
added
needs-rebase
|
/hold |
tekton-robot
added
the
do-not-merge/hold
chitrangpatel
force-pushed
the
concise-resolver
branch
from
25ae3f6
to
c068831
Compare
|
/hold cancel Since the required refactoring has been completed. |
tekton-robot
removed
the
do-not-merge/hold
|
The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
|
|
The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
|
chitrangpatel
force-pushed
the
concise-resolver
branch
from
c068831
to
d36521c
Compare
|
The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
|
|
The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
|
JeromeJu
reviewed
May 14, 2024
| return errs | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func validateRef(ctx context.Context, refName string, refResolver ResolverName, refParams Params) (errs *apis.FieldError) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: validateRef looks more likely to be in taskref_validation than container_validation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is for validating the StepAction Ref. I think that's in container validation.
There is a separate validateTaskRef which is in taskref validation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am not sure I understand - ain't this change here using validateRef as a function that's used commonly at container_validation, taskref_validation and pipeline_validation?
And maybe as you pointed explicitly name it as validateStepActionRef might untangle this? WDYT
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's tied to validating the ref. The field name for StepAction Ref is ref. That's why I went with validateRef since it is validating the ref field.
chitrangpatel
force-pushed
the
concise-resolver
branch
from
d36521c
to
70ae22f
Compare
This PR enables concise resolver syntax interface.
chitrangpatel
force-pushed
the
concise-resolver
branch
from
70ae22f
to
e0fec18
Compare
|
The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
|
|
The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
|
|
The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
|
JeromeJu
reviewed
May 15, 2024
| return bundle.ValidateParams(ctx, req.Params) | ||
| } | ||
| // Remove this error once validate url has been implemented. | ||
| return errors.New("cannot validate request. the Validate method has not been implemented.") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could we add test cases for those failure usage?
JeromeJu
reviewed
May 15, 2024
That will be different for each resolver since they decide the scheme. In followup PRs when we update the individual resolvers, we will add this. |
JeromeJu
approved these changes
May 15, 2024
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: JeromeJu, vdemeester, Yongxuanzhang 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 |
JeromeJu
reviewed
May 15, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
/lgtm
offline discussion with @chitrangpatel that we'll have more example test cases coming up in the follow-up PR with the actual scheTypes
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.
This PR enables concise resolver syntax as per TEP 0154. It allows users to pass a url like string to
Taskref/namefield.This PR does not add the schemes supported by the
built-inresolvers. That will come in followup PRs.Here, we just set up the framework.
Changes
enable-concise-resolver-syntaxnamesuch that it can also beurl-like. Bothnameandparamscannot be passed at the same time as discussed in the TEP. If using aurl-likename then the feature flag must be enabled.urlwhich is passed in thespecwithparams.namelike we allow in resolver params.ValidatingUrl.ValidatingUrlto all built-in resolvers. Currently it does not validate anything. The details will be added in a followup PR.how-to-write-a-resolverdocs.Submitter Checklist
As the author of this PR, please check off the items in this checklist:
/kind <type>. Valid types are bug, cleanup, design, documentation, feature, flake, misc, question, tepRelease Notes
/kind feature
/hold wait for TEP to be merged.