-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.5k
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 PRR metadata required #2672
Make PRR metadata required #2672
Conversation
724e7e9
to
3c7b2da
Compare
Assuming this passes verify in CI... Added default values of "1.0" and "alpha" for KEPs missing metadata. Started to actually fill values in but there were nearly 100 that needed an update so I gave up. We can leave that to KEP authors/SIG leads to fix IMO, it'll be easier if we spread out the work. |
af7bbd5
to
f85c19b
Compare
@@ -32,6 +32,8 @@ func (r *Repo) Validate() ( | |||
valErrMap map[string][]error, | |||
err error, | |||
) { | |||
valErrMap = map[string][]error{} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This not being initialized was causing the error map to not get populated below.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
FYI #2676
@saschagrunert
@@ -99,6 +101,7 @@ func (r *Repo) Validate() ( | |||
if kepParseErr != nil { | |||
return warnings, valErrMap, errors.Wrap(kepParseErr, "parsing KEP file") | |||
} | |||
kep.Filename = filename |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This lets me print out an error where the offending file is actually referenced and I can fix it more easily.
latest-milestone: "1.0" | ||
stage: "alpha" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Since we have validation on values and I was too lazy to add "unknowns" I set the defaults to 1.0/alpha for everything that was marked implementable.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Instead of "0.0", can we maybe set "0.0" - to make it more clear that it's a marker?
Okay, I think this should be ready. |
/label tide/merge-method-squash |
@ehashman - wow, what is that? |
@@ -27,3 +27,6 @@ replaces: | |||
- n/a | |||
superseded-by: | |||
- n/a | |||
|
|||
latest-milestone: "0.0" | |||
stage: "alpha" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry - I hate myself for this comment, but I'm wondering if we should consider "pre-alpha" (or sth like that) for those cases.
When I see a stage in those files, I conceptually think that this stage is happening, and in some cases it's not necessary true. (It would also be a cleaner marker).
I'm happy to be outvoted though - @ehashman @johnbelamaric @deads2k for thoughts
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I tried setting "unknown" previously but it got rejected by validation and I wasn't sure if it made sense to add it as a new state.
Will make the bot squash my commits on merge so I don't have to 🤣 |
/lgtm |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: ehashman, johnbelamaric 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 |
Per https://kubernetes.slack.com/archives/C1L57L91V/p1620161103120500