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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

More consistent lifecycle conditions for certificate #5138

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 19, 2019
Merged

More consistent lifecycle conditions for certificate #5138

merged 1 commit into from
Aug 19, 2019

Conversation

taragu
Copy link
Contributor

@taragu taragu commented Aug 12, 2019

/lint

Related to #5076

Proposed Changes

This PR fixes the inconsistencies in lifecycle conditions of certificate. As proposed here, there are currently a lot of inconsistencies in our lifecycle Mark* methods. We'd like to use the following pattern:

  • MarkFooReady -> Ready=True
  • MarkFooNotReady -> Ready=Unknown
  • MarkFooFailed -> Ready=False

Release Note

NONE

/cc @jonjohnsonjr

Consistent lifecycle conditions for certificate:
49e4957 
MarkFooReady -> Ready=True
MarkFooNotReady -> Ready=Unknown
MarkFooFailed -> Ready=False
@knative-prow-robot knative-prow-robot added the size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. label Aug 12, 2019
@googlebot googlebot added the cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CLA. label Aug 12, 2019
@knative-prow-robot knative-prow-robot added area/API API objects and controllers area/networking labels Aug 12, 2019
knative-prow-robot
knative-prow-robot reviewed Aug 12, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@knative-prow-robot knative-prow-robot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@taragu: 0 warnings.

In response to this:

/lint

Related to #5076

Proposed Changes

This PR fixes the inconsistencies in lifecycle conditions of certificate. As proposed here, there are currently a lot of inconsistencies in our lifecycle Mark* methods. We'd like to use the following pattern:

  • MarkFooReady -> Ready=True
  • MarkFooNotReady -> Ready=Unknown
  • MarkFooFailed -> Ready=False

Release Note

NONE

/cc @jonjohnsonjr

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/test-infra repository.

@knative-prow-robot knative-prow-robot added the needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. label Aug 12, 2019
@knative-prow-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @taragu. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a knative member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

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/test-infra repository.

@jonjohnsonjr
Copy link
Contributor

/ok-to-test

@knative-prow-robot knative-prow-robot added ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. and removed needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Aug 13, 2019
@knative-test-reporter-robot
Copy link

The following tests are currently flaky. Running them again to verify...

Test name Retries
pull-knative-serving-integration-tests 1/3

Automatically retrying...
/test pull-knative-serving-integration-tests

@jonjohnsonjr
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm

/assign @markusthoemmes

@knative-prow-robot knative-prow-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Aug 13, 2019
@ZhiminXiang
Copy link

/lgtm

markusthoemmes
markusthoemmes approved these changes Aug 19, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@markusthoemmes markusthoemmes 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-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: markusthoemmes, taragu

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-robot knative-prow-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Aug 19, 2019
@knative-prow-robot knative-prow-robot merged commit 00cef79 into knative:master Aug 19, 2019
@taragu taragu deleted the consistent-condition-CertificateStatus branch November 12, 2019 16:02
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@knative-prow-robot knative-prow-robot knative-prow-robot left review comments

@markusthoemmes markusthoemmes markusthoemmes approved these changes

@jonjohnsonjr jonjohnsonjr Awaiting requested review from jonjohnsonjr

Assignees

@markusthoemmes markusthoemmes

@ZhiminXiang ZhiminXiang

@jonjohnsonjr jonjohnsonjr

Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. area/API API objects and controllers area/networking cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CLA. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
7 participants
@taragu @knative-prow-robot @jonjohnsonjr @knative-test-reporter-robot @ZhiminXiang @markusthoemmes @googlebot