-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 251
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
New application entity (v0.3.0) #447
Conversation
|
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.
lgtm after nit
7.application.md
Outdated
In practice, the available workload types are registered by infrastructure operators/platform builders to the platform following OAM specification. They are explained in detail in this chapter: [workload definition](4.workload_types.md). | ||
A component may define a set of parameters that can be modified for each particular instance. | ||
|
||
upon instanciation. |
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.
What's this line?
7.application.md
Outdated
traits: | ||
- name: scaler | ||
- name: ingress # ingress trait providing a public endpoint for the publicweb component of the application. |
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.
Maybe leave a comment here indicating that the name of the trait will be the same as the component?
Co-authored-by: Hongchao Deng <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Jianbo Sun <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Lei Zhang (Harry) <[email protected]>
Hi! I have been testing deploying an Application in Kubevela following the proposed changes and it seems that there is a mismatch related to how scopes are specified. In the previous version, we used a
However it seems that the new runtime expects a map as:
@resouer, @hongchaodeng Could you please check which one is the expected one? I will update the example accordingly before merging the PR. |
In application, I hope we can use this way as it's more convenient:
The
|
+1 to @wonderflow 's approach. Note that this also implies the |
@resouer , @wonderflow I have uploaded the changes related to the scope. |
New revision available. Thanks @kminder for the awesome review. |
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.
Approved
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.
Thanks, great job!
What does this PR do?
Where should the reviewer start?
7.application.md
for most changes.What is missing?
Any background context you want to provide?
What are the associated tickets?
Questions
Component instances and revisions of component
has been updated with components, but this is closely related to how the runtime is expected to operate. Is this still the intended behavior? I think it is necessary to create a component instance since we are referencing components by type and assigning them a new name, which I suppose will be used to name the component instance.