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

accesscontextmanager - Update ingress / egress array ordering semantics #11945

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Charlesleonius
Copy link
Member

@Charlesleonius Charlesleonius commented Oct 8, 2024

Fixes a permadiff in ingress / egress fine grained resources in cases where the API returns a different ordering for lists.

accesscontextmanager: fixed a permadiff in ingress / egress fine grained resources in cases where the API returns a different ordering for lists

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Oct 8, 2024

Hello! I am a robot. Tests will require approval from a repository maintainer to run.

@trodge, a repository maintainer, has been assigned to review your changes. If you have not received review feedback within 2 business days, please leave a comment on this PR asking them to take a look.

You can help make sure that review is quick by doing a self-review and by running impacted tests locally.

@github-actions github-actions bot requested a review from trodge October 8, 2024 17:51
@modular-magician
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi there, I'm the Modular magician. I've detected the following information about your changes:

Diff report

Your PR hasn't generated any diffs, but I'll let you know if a future commit does.

@trodge
Copy link
Contributor

trodge commented Oct 10, 2024

This field doesn't seem to have any effect on the generated code. Was the intention to make these fields into sets? If so, that may be a breaking change.

Copy link

@trodge This PR has been waiting for review for 3 weekdays. Please take a look! Use the label disable-review-reminders to disable these notifications.

@Charlesleonius
Copy link
Member Author

@trodge I was under the impression that we could ignore the ordering of fields without making them sets to avoid a breaking change but that only works for top level fields. Im looking for other work arounds because this is causing a permadiff and waiting till the next major release is not an option for some customers

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants