feat: add update-collection-v3 boilerplate #241
Conversation
| There is a PR pending that would add that functionality but unfortunately `go-yaml` | ||
| doesn't seem to be actively maintained. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we want to use not actively maintain package?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's the only one I found with a reasonable number of Github stars (obviously important).
There's also this one as an alternative.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I meant this one: https://github.com/goccy/go-yaml.
Perhaps this would be a good choice given that it allows parsing yaml using path: https://github.com/goccy/go-yaml#5-use-yamlpath
| func parseValues(path string) (ValuesV2, error) { | ||
| f, err := os.Open(path) | ||
| if err != nil { | ||
| return ValuesV2{}, fmt.Errorf("cannot open file %s: %w", path, err) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| decoder := yaml.NewDecoder(bufio.NewReader(f)) | ||
|
|
||
| var valuesV2 ValuesV2 | ||
| if err := decoder.Decode(&valuesV2); err != nil { | ||
| return ValuesV2{}, fmt.Errorf("cannot unmarshal data from %s: %w", path, err) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| return valuesV2, nil | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What happens for partial values.yaml or for values.yaml with additional keys?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What do you mean by partial?
Additional ( if I understand it correctly by not defined in the struct) ones will be dropped. Maybe this could be worked around using yaml.Node
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What do you mean by partial?
with missing keys, e.g.:
sumologic:
accessId: xxxThere was a problem hiding this comment.
There is nothing missing in the yaml snippet you posted. There is no notion of "required" in this package.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
my doubt is, that Stringifying ValuesV2 will override defaults with empty strings
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok, so I've checked this and yes, it will print all the values - also the empty ones.
The nuance here is that if we'd use omitempty then we couldn't e.g. override a default boolean true in our chart because false wouldn't be serialized. Even adding omitempty wouldn't help because then we'd get all the values.
EDIT: changed field to be pointer fields and added omitempty. This should do the trick.
pmalek-sumo
force-pushed
the
feat-add-update-collection-v3
branch
from
385c6e4
to
1fa2762
Compare
| LoadConfigFile *bool `yaml:"load_config_file,omitempty"` | ||
| } `yaml:"cluster,omitempty"` | ||
| CollectionMonitoring *bool `yaml:"collectionMonitoring,omitempty"` | ||
| PodLabels struct{} `yaml:"podLabels,omitempty"` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
does it deserialize:
podLabels:
label1: value1
correctly?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good point. This will probably have to be either defined as struct or as map[string]interface{}.
Given this is just a boilerplate PR I'll leave this for future PRs to decide and add tests for it :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
TBH I am not sure now if typed language is good for the migration case
On the other hand we will have a typed schema for our collection
swiatekm
force-pushed
the
feat-add-update-collection-v3
branch
from
1fa2762
to
a253927
Compare
No description provided.