-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 47
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.
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
🌱 refactor catalogmetadata types used for resolution #599
Open
everettraven
wants to merge
3
commits into
operator-framework:main
Choose a base branch
from
everettraven:updates/resolution
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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 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 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 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
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If I remember our conversation from January correctly, we decided to get rid of fields like
InChannels
and try to keep original FBC/declcfg
stucts as much as possible. I see thatInChannels
is now gone, butDeprecation
field onBundle
and other structs was added. I think it is the same same concept.Should we explore adding some maps in places where we need to do lookups of deprecation entries? Or something similar what you did to channels (using filters).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I similarly recall the conversation as keeping the wrapper as simple as possible if one is necessary (at the very least we need one for that catalog name since the
declcfg.*
representations don't store catalog information). I recall @joelanford mentioning adding the deprecation entry to the wrapper as well in previous conversations so I took that approach as it was one less set of information to deal with after the fact. I'm not opposed to either of the approaches though so this is more or less a "let's pick one and I'll implement it" situation.The benefit of this approach is that there is no lookup cost after the set of packages, channels, and bundles are returned but there are definitely other solutions where the lookup cost is negligible that I'm open to exploring.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't remember the context of my suggestion of putting the deprecation entry in the wrapper, but I think I'd suggest separating it out and keeping the structure similar to the FBC structure.