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

fix: remove ingress option from delivery format #8086

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 9, 2024

Conversation

Cali0707
Copy link
Member

@Cali0707 Cali0707 commented Jul 9, 2024

Removes the delivery format option we had before, and aligns the code with the approach used for other similar fields in the delivery spec.

Proposed Changes

  • remove the ingress option from the format type
  • create a type alias and some constants for the format type options

Signed-off-by: Calum Murray <cmurray@redhat.com>
@Cali0707
Copy link
Member Author

Cali0707 commented Jul 9, 2024

/cc @matzew

@knative-prow knative-prow bot added size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. labels Jul 9, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 9, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 67.85%. Comparing base (9eed163) to head (42d46a5).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8086      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   67.85%   67.85%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         367      367              
  Lines       17356    17354       -2     
==========================================
- Hits        11777    11775       -2     
  Misses       4844     4844              
  Partials      735      735              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

type FormatType string

const (
DeliveryFormatJson FormatType = "json"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

why not calling it structured?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This was an idea from #8080 (comment), I'm personally happy either way :)

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ok, I was guess it was along those lines.

OK.

Copy link
Member

@matzew matzew left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm
/approve

@knative-prow knative-prow bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jul 9, 2024
Copy link

knative-prow bot commented Jul 9, 2024

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: Cali0707, matzew

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

@knative-prow knative-prow bot merged commit 71d7e5e into knative:main Jul 9, 2024
33 of 36 checks passed
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. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants