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

ART-9021 get rid of auto in canonical_builders_from_upstream #669

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 25, 2024

Conversation

Ximinhan
Copy link
Contributor

@Ximinhan Ximinhan commented Jun 4, 2024

canonical_builders_from_upstream supported mode to limit to [ True, False ] remove the unused lib release_schedule.py

@@ -627,23 +625,6 @@ def test_canonical_builders_enabled(self, release_schedule, mock_datetime):
self.img_dg.runtime.group_config.canonical_builders_from_upstream = True
self.assertEqual(False, self.img_dg._canonical_builders_enabled())

# canonical_builders_from_upstream = 'on' in image config (override)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This block should still apply, why removing it?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

the on and off also need to be replaced with true and false, pr updated to limit supported mode to [ True, False ]

@@ -229,7 +229,7 @@
"urls-": {},
"canonical_builders_from_upstream": {
"description": "Assert our base images, or listen to upstream",
"enum": [true, false, "auto", "off", "no", "on", "yes"]
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The code still handles on and off, so why deprecating these in the schema? If we do so, the code should only allow True or False

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

the on and off also need to be replaced with true and false, let's limit the value to bool true and false

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ok, so maybe we can use a boolean type instead?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

yeah, pr updated

@@ -208,7 +208,7 @@
"content-": {},
"canonical_builders_from_upstream": {
"description": "Override the facility to adhere to upstream suggestions for base images",
"enum": [true, false, "auto", "off", "no", "on", "yes"]
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Same as above

@Ximinhan Ximinhan added the tide/merge-method-squash Denotes a PR that should be squashed by tide when it merges. label Jun 13, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Jun 13, 2024

@Ximinhan: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name Commit Details Required Rerun command
ci/prow/security 42ae623 link false /test security

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

@joepvd
Copy link
Contributor

joepvd commented Jun 25, 2024

/approve

Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Jun 25, 2024

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: joepvd

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 Jun 25, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@locriandev locriandev 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 openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jun 25, 2024
@openshift-merge-bot openshift-merge-bot bot merged commit 6f5e6dd into openshift-eng:main Jun 25, 2024
2 of 3 checks passed
@Ximinhan Ximinhan deleted the fix-schedule branch June 25, 2024 08:03
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
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. tide/merge-method-squash Denotes a PR that should be squashed by tide when it merges.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants