Update porch-controllers use of the Kpt Fn SDK #3940
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think running make tidy in the porch directory should update the porch go module deps and address the failing test.
I think separating this into its own go mod is fine for now. When/If cncf/sandbox#34 is approved and we can move it all into a separate github org, we should look into whether we can split things up into either multiple repos or have clearer structure between the different go modules within the repo. I find nested go modules somewhat hard to manage.
Separately, we should look into whether the replace directives are always appropriate.
| @@ -722,27 +722,13 @@ func ensurePackageContext(pv *api.PackageVariant, | |||
| return nil | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| // find the kptfile.kpt.dev ConfigMap, it must be in package-context.yaml | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are the changes in this file related to adding the go mod?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Some of them, because the fn lib was updated. I pulled this set of change from a different PR.
| return nil, fmt.Errorf("%q not found in PackageRevisionResources '%s/%s'", file, prr.Namespace, prr.Name) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| ko, err := fn.ParseKubeObject([]byte(prr.Spec.Resources[file])) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since the resources is a fileName-fileContent key-value pair, I'm just curious whether we have considered the content overflow
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Overflow in what sense? There is a potential http request size limit for posts, I think there's an open issue on that. Is there a different overflow you are thinking of?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sounds good. Yeah, HTTP request size is the one I'm thinking.
|
So, |
This PR changes the
porch-controllersbinary to use its own go.mod, and updates to the latest Kpt Function SDK.By using a separate go.mod, we don't have to update all the compiled in functions and other areas.
cc @yuwenma @mortent @natasha41575