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

Mark some of the option fields as ignored in pkg/bindings #15491

Merged

Conversation

marshall-lee
Copy link
Contributor

I realized that params.Del("SkipTLSVerify") doesn't have any effect because keys are always lowercased. So it should really be params.Del("skiptlsverify").

There's also a little bug introduced by 3bf52aa and b1d1248: if one passes ProgressWriter object having Stringer interface i.e. bytes.Buffer it ends up been serialized in query with util.ToParams().

To circumvent both problems I propose to mark non-serializable parameters with schema:"-" so there's no need to delete them from resulting url.Values.

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

none

I realized that `params.Del("SkipTLSVerify")` doesn't have any
effect because keys are always lowercased. So it should really
be `params.Del("skiptlsverify")`.

There's also a little bug introduced by 3bf52aa and b1d1248: if
one passes `ProgressWriter` object having `Stringer` interface
i.e. `bytes.Buffer` it ends up been serialized in query with
`util.ToParams()`.

To circumvent both problems I propose to mark non-serializable
parameters with `schema:"-"` so there's no need to delete them from
resulting `url.Values`.

Signed-off-by: Vladimir Kochnev <[email protected]>
@marshall-lee marshall-lee force-pushed the bindings-schema-ignore branch from 28961bb to cfdca82 Compare August 26, 2022 06:55
Copy link
Member

@vrothberg vrothberg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@jwhonce can you take a look?

@rhatdan
Copy link
Member

rhatdan commented Aug 26, 2022

LGTM
@baude PTAL

@marshall-lee
Copy link
Contributor Author

Bump

@rhatdan
Copy link
Member

rhatdan commented Aug 31, 2022

@baude PTAL

@baude
Copy link
Member

baude commented Aug 31, 2022

/approve

@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Aug 31, 2022

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: baude, marshall-lee

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 openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Aug 31, 2022
@baude
Copy link
Member

baude commented Aug 31, 2022

/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Aug 31, 2022
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit 7503c55 into containers:main Aug 31, 2022
@marshall-lee marshall-lee deleted the bindings-schema-ignore branch August 31, 2022 10:33
@github-actions github-actions bot added the locked - please file new issue/PR Assist humans wanting to comment on an old issue or PR with locked comments. label Sep 20, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 20, 2023
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
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. locked - please file new issue/PR Assist humans wanting to comment on an old issue or PR with locked comments. release-note-none
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants