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

import prefix #15955

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Sep 11, 2017
Merged

import prefix #15955

merged 5 commits into from
Sep 11, 2017

Conversation

deads2k
Copy link
Contributor

@deads2k deads2k commented Aug 24, 2017

adds a fix for TSB from #15727

@deads2k deads2k added 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. labels Aug 24, 2017
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot added the size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files. label Aug 24, 2017
@deads2k
Copy link
Contributor Author

deads2k commented Aug 24, 2017

Reviewed and lgtm'd #15727 (stefan's). Tagging.

@deads2k
Copy link
Contributor Author

deads2k commented Aug 24, 2017

@smarterclayton how long must we keep using the non-groupified groups? This change is changing the output from oc run to the groupified version. It skews one release now. We ok with it?

@sttts got it to build, but now

test/cmd/basicresources.sh:313: executing 'oc run --dry-run foo --image=bar -o "go-template={{.kind}} {{.apiVersion}}"' expecting success and text 'DeploymentConfig v1'
FAILURE after 0.259s: test/cmd/basicresources.sh:313: executing 'oc run --dry-run foo --image=bar -o "go-template={{.kind}} {{.apiVersion}}"' expecting success and text 'DeploymentConfig v1': the output content test failed
Standard output from the command:
DeploymentConfig apps.openshift.io/v1

@stevekuznetsov
Copy link
Contributor

/unassign

@deads2k deads2k mentioned this pull request Aug 24, 2017
Closed
@mfojtik
Copy link
Contributor

mfojtik commented Aug 24, 2017

@deads2k dry-run has been broken before AFAIK, i think this will make it a little bit worse :)

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

6 similar comments
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@deads2k deads2k removed the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Aug 28, 2017
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Sep 1, 2017
sttts and others added 5 commits September 8, 2017 13:42
@sttts @deads2k
UPSTREAM: 50094: apimachinery: remove pre-apigroups import path logic
6fe0846
@sttts @deads2k
Remove Store.ImportPrefix everywhere
67fe441
@sttts @deads2k
Update etcd path test to always use kindWhiteList
ad27372 
Most types now have valid rest mappings because
NewDefaultRESTMapperFromScheme no longer ignores certain import
paths.  Thus we can no longer use the lack of a valid REST mapping
as an indicator for when to use kindWhiteList.  Thus kindWhiteList
now serves as a whitelist for all kinds and not just those that
formally had no mapping.  This does mean that we could whitelist
kinds due to a name conflict, but that is unlikely as names such as
GetOptions are not appropriate for new objects.
@sttts @deads2k
Unify and simplify legacy api installation
5ab152d 
At the same time we get rid of the need for Store.ImportPrefix to filter the RESTMapper for each
legacy group. Before this commit we had overlapping RESTMapper, even inconsistent ones because
the root kinds were wrong outside of each legacy group.
@deads2k
tweaks and rebase
f8dfe5a
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Sep 8, 2017
@deads2k
Copy link
Contributor Author

deads2k commented Sep 11, 2017

@deads2k dry-run has been broken before AFAIK, i think this will make it a little bit worse :)

Got it fixed.

@mfojtik
Copy link
Contributor

mfojtik commented Sep 11, 2017

/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Sep 11, 2017
@openshift-merge-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: deads2k, mfojtik

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these OWNERS Files:

You can indicate your approval by writing /approve in a comment
You can cancel your approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@openshift-merge-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Automatic merge from submit-queue

@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit 33e16e8 into openshift:master Sep 11, 2017
@sttts
Copy link
Contributor

sttts commented Sep 18, 2017

🎉

@deads2k thanks for getting this merged!

@deads2k deads2k deleted the server-37-import branch January 24, 2018 14:34
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees

@mfojtik mfojtik

@liggitt liggitt

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/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
8 participants
@deads2k @stevekuznetsov @mfojtik @openshift-bot @openshift-merge-robot @sttts @liggitt @openshift-ci-robot