⚠️ allow filtering with a list of channels #1173
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for olmv1 ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1173 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 76.59% 76.49% -0.11%
==========================================
Files 40 40
Lines 2329 2340 +11
==========================================
+ Hits 1784 1790 +6
- Misses 389 393 +4
- Partials 156 157 +1
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
internal/resolve/catalog.go
Outdated
| ResolvedBundles []*declcfg.Bundle | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func buildResolutionError(rei resolutionErrorInfo) error { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I tried this once (an error generation function) and there was opposition to it. At that time, it was called in multiple places, this seems to be simply pulling out the code into a function, without any additional callers.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(And of course, this requires changing all the error messages)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I pulled it out into a separate function because the linter was complaining about the nesting depth being too high.
Regarding changing all the error messages, I found it a bit more complex to read the previous error logic in a switch statement and thought it was a bit more readable using this new strings.Builder approach because it is more linear in nature (i.e as you read each line of the code you see the scenarios that result in new information being added to the error string we return).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If folks prefer the previous approach, I can revert this change.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't care, I just wanted to make the note.
openshift-merge-robot
added
the
needs-rebase
|
New changes are detected. LGTM label has been removed. |
everettraven
force-pushed
the
feature/channels-filtering
branch
from
5c0112d to
c720e73
Compare
openshift-merge-robot
removed
the
needs-rebase
everettraven
force-pushed
the
feature/channels-filtering
branch
from
c720e73 to
dc90ec5
Compare
openshift-merge-robot
added
the
needs-rebase
everettraven
force-pushed
the
feature/channels-filtering
branch
from
dc90ec5 to
7435dac
Compare
openshift-merge-robot
removed
the
needs-rebase
| Type: ocv1alpha1.TypeChannelDeprecated, | ||
| Reason: ocv1alpha1.ReasonDeprecated, | ||
| Status: metav1.ConditionTrue, | ||
| ObservedGeneration: 1, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm, I didn't realize this test ignored the message. Follow-up?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there a specific reason we should be testing the message?
I understand wanting to verify our message crafting logic is correct, but I lean towards the camp where the message is any arbitrary string and is not part of our API guarantees - testing for it explicitly makes our unit tests brittle
everettraven
force-pushed
the
feature/channels-filtering
branch
from
29458cc to
8369bf5
Compare
Signed-off-by: everettraven <[email protected]>
everettraven
force-pushed
the
feature/channels-filtering
branch
from
173064d to
690c2ce
Compare
c4470cc
Description
Updates the
ClusterExtension.Spec.Channelfield to now beClusterExtension.Spec.Channelsand accept a list of channel names for filtering of bundles during resolutionUpdates resolution logic, unit, and e2e tests as necessary
Resolves Update the
ClusterExtension.Spec.Channelfield to be a list of channels #1150Reviewer Checklist