-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 543
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
Sort channels in lexicographical order in packagemanifest #2925
Sort channels in lexicographical order in packagemanifest #2925
Conversation
9a410ec
to
99b0c51
Compare
Nice! Should we add a test for this to avoid regressions? |
4187bc5
to
33b6aa9
Compare
@joelanford done 👍🏽 PTAL. |
{ | ||
Name: "alpha", | ||
CsvName: "etcdoperator.v0.9.2", | ||
}, | ||
{ | ||
Name: "beta", | ||
CsvName: "etcdoperator.v0.10.1", | ||
}, |
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.
Does this test pass without the sort change? Seems like we may want to reverse the order of these here and check that they always end up as [alpha, beta].
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.
Reason being: pkg.GetChannels() returns in whatever order we define here I think:
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.
That's fair. I've reversed the order, the input is now [beta,alpha] with the expected output as [alpha, beta]. And with this setup, when the sort change is reversed, this test fails.
33b6aa9
to
f06ebaf
Compare
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.
/lgtm
f06ebaf
to
ca055ba
Compare
New changes are detected. LGTM label has been removed. |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED Approval requirements bypassed by manually added approval. This pull-request has been approved by: anik120, joelanford The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
ca055ba
to
65e90aa
Compare
New changes are detected. LGTM label has been removed. |
See operator-framework/operator-registry#1069 for more details Signed-off-by: Anik <anikbhattacharya93@gmail.com>
65e90aa
to
3b1b3f9
Compare
New changes are detected. LGTM label has been removed. |
Motivation for the change:
See operator-framework/operator-registry#1069 for more details
Architectural changes:
None
Reviewer Checklist
/doc
[FLAKE]
are truly flaky and have an issue