apps: replace legacy client with generated in pkg/deploy/cmd #16149
Conversation
openshift-ci-robot
added
the
size/XL
openshift-merge-robot
added
approved
| type updateConfigFunc func(d *deployapi.DeploymentConfig) | ||
|
|
||
| // updateConfigWithRetries will try to update a deployment config and ignore any update conflicts. | ||
| func updateConfigWithRetries(dn appsinternal.DeploymentConfigsGetter, namespace, name string, applyUpdate updateConfigFunc) (*deployapi.DeploymentConfig, error) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this should probably exists in some helper/util package
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@tnozicka do you know if we have this helperized already? i'm pretty sure we doing this in couple places.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
haven't seen such helper yet
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // DeploymentConfigHistoryViewer is an implementation of the kubectl HistoryViewer interface | ||
| // for deployment configs. | ||
| type DeploymentConfigHistoryViewer struct { | ||
| rn kcoreclient.ReplicationControllersGetter | ||
| dn client.DeploymentConfigsNamespacer |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah... maybe a leftover from some refact.
| kc kclientset.Interface | ||
| pollInterval, timeout time.Duration | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| type updateConfigFunc func(d *deployapi.DeploymentConfig) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not a fan. Why do we still have this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
was just copy from the old client, seems like it is only used in one place, so right, we don't need this.
| type updateConfigFunc func(d *deployapi.DeploymentConfig) | ||
|
|
||
| // updateConfigWithRetries will try to update a deployment config and ignore any update conflicts. | ||
| func updateConfigWithRetries(dn appsinternal.DeploymentConfigsGetter, namespace, name string, applyUpdate updateConfigFunc) (*deployapi.DeploymentConfig, error) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This just shouldn't exist. If you want patch behavior, write a patch.
If this was pre-existing, open an issue.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
lets fix that, low hanging fruit and I will forget about it: #16166
|
/lgtm |
mfojtik
force-pushed
the
deploy-clientset-cmd
branch
from
824be43
to
ff5079f
Compare
|
/retest |
mfojtik
force-pushed
the
deploy-clientset-cmd
branch
from
ff5079f
to
9ff8c20
Compare
openshift-ci-robot
added
size/L
| @@ -221,11 +222,15 @@ func (f *ring1Factory) LogsForObject(object, options runtime.Object, timeout tim | |||
|
|
|||
| func (f *ring1Factory) Scaler(mapping *meta.RESTMapping) (kubectl.Scaler, error) { | |||
| if deployapi.IsKindOrLegacy("DeploymentConfig", mapping.GroupVersionKind.GroupKind()) { | |||
| oc, kc, err := f.clientAccessFactory.Clients() | |||
| _, kc, err := f.clientAccessFactory.Clients() | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't like this. Are we planning to change Clients() to return openshift clientsets in the end? I do hope. Although probably it'll happen only when we actually remove pkg/client
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't like this. Are we planning to change Clients() to return openshift clientsets in the end? I do hope. Although probably it'll happen only when we actually remove pkg/client
I think we will remove Clients altogether and create separate helpers for each individual type of client.
|
There are no actual api changes here, just comments for the generation. Applying the api-approved label. |
|
/retest |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: deads2k, mfojtik, soltysh 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 |
|
/unneeds-api-review |
|
/joke |
|
@mfojtik: I don't trust stairs. They're always up to something. In response to this:
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. |
|
Automatic merge from submit-queue |
Automatic merge from submit-queue apps: use patch when pausing dc on delete Ignore the first 2 commits, they are part of #16149 Don't try to emulate PATCH behavior with retrying updates on conflicts (of course patch can also conflict, but chances are low). Also we use PATCH for pausing in `oc rollout pause` already, so this just unify this behavior. Ref: #16149 (comment)
Ignore first 3 commits, they are part of #16100
@deads2k last bits in apps group