Revert "Removes GVKRequired struct (#400)" #405
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This reverts commit 5cbc9a0. Signed-off-by: Mikalai Radchuk <mradchuk@redhat.com>
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
|
/lgtm |
stevekuznetsov
approved these changes
Sep 11, 2023
openshift-ci
bot
removed
the
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
This reverts commit 5cbc9a0 from #400.
We accidentally merged #400. I should’ve marked it as a draft after this thread.
I think both operator-registry and operator-controller can get rid of it, but it is not a trivial thing to do on operator-registry side since it uses go type to map to a property type. It is not a difficult change either, but I don’t have time to look into it at the moment.
While operator-registry still has this this extra type, I think, operator-controller should also have it. There is no impact on functionality on operator-controller side without the second type, but it might be confusing that we have two types on operator-registry side and one in operator-controller.
Reviewer Checklist