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

[CI:DOCS] apiv2 fix volumes not included field #7097

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 3, 2020

Conversation

QiWang19
Copy link
Contributor

Do not use volume from docker since UsageData field is not need. It's nullable in docker API and expensive to add.

Signed-off-by: Qi Wang [email protected]


// List of volumes
// Required: true
Volumes VolumeInfo `json:"Volumes"`
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should this be an array?

// Required: true
Scope string `json:"Scope"`

// Low-level details about the volume, provided by the volume driver.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It's completely omitted in Podman for now, we should mention this.

// Required: true
Options map[string]string `json:"Options"`

// The level at which the volume exists. Either `global` for cluster-wide, or `local` for machine level.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is always set to "local" for Podman, we do not support global volumes (they're a swarm thing)

@jwhonce jwhonce changed the title [CI:DOCS] apiv2 fix volumes not inculded field [CI:DOCS] apiv2 fix volumes not included field Jul 27, 2020
@QiWang19 QiWang19 force-pushed the usagedate branch 3 times, most recently from 65ffa2a to 0e5fd12 Compare July 29, 2020 14:33
Do not use volume from docker since UsageData field is not need. It's nullable in docker API and expensive to add.

Signed-off-by: Qi Wang <[email protected]>
@TomSweeneyRedHat
Copy link
Member

Should this PR really have the [CI:DOCS] tag in the subject?

@TomSweeneyRedHat
Copy link
Member

LGTM once @mheon 's concerns are addressed.

@QiWang19 QiWang19 linked an issue Jul 29, 2020 that may be closed by this pull request
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.

/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Aug 3, 2020
@vrothberg
Copy link
Member

/lgtm

@rhatdan
Copy link
Member

rhatdan commented Aug 3, 2020

/approve

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: QiWang19, rhatdan

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 Aug 3, 2020
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit 70c75bc into containers:master Aug 3, 2020
@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 24, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 24, 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.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[APIv2] volume ls output no "UsageData","Status"
7 participants