chore: use 'https' protocol for .net 6.0 devfile. Update schema to 2.2.0

[ibuziuk]

What does this PR do?:

• update schema to the 2.2.0 (latest 2.2.2 is not yet supported - Add library support for devfile schema - version 2.2.1 & version 2.2.2 api#1454)
• use 'https' protocol for .net 6.0 devfile

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

N/A

PR acceptance criteria:

• Contributing guide
  Have you read the devfile registry contributing guide and followed its instructions?
• Test automation
  Does this repository's tests pass with your changes?
• Documentation
  Does any documentation need to be updated with your changes?
• Check Tools Provider
  Have you tested the changes with existing tools, i.e. Odo, Che, Console? (See devfile registry contributing guide on how to test changes)

How to test changes / Special notes to the reviewer:

try it out on Developer Sandbox - https://workspaces.openshift.com/#https://raw.githubusercontent.com/devfile/registry/1f99545009bad5ab1f3231c66bcd6bf29d583573/stacks/dotnet60/devfile.yaml

[ibuziuk]

@kadel @yangcao77 folks, could you clarify why 2.2.2 is not supported ?

rror: failed to generate index struct: /build/stacks/dotnet60 devfile is not valid: failed to populateAndParseDevfile: unable to find schema for version "2.2.2". The parser supports devfile schema for version 2.0.0, 2.1.0, 2.2.0, v1alpha2

[thepetk]

@kadel as you are the owner of the stack, could you please also review the PR?

Accidentally approved

[thepetk]

@kadel @yangcao77 folks, could you clarify why 2.2.2 is not supported ?

rror: failed to generate index struct: /build/stacks/dotnet60 devfile is not valid: failed to populateAndParseDevfile: unable to find schema for version "2.2.2". The parser supports devfile schema for version 2.0.0, 2.1.0, 2.2.0, v1alpha2

My bad I've tested with schemaVersion 2.2.0 instead of 2.2.2. I've removed my approval 🥲
I think atm the supported versions of the devfile library are listed here so the v2.2.2 is not yet supported from the parser. @ibuziuk would it make sense to change the schemaVersion from 2.2.2 to 2.2.0?

[ibuziuk]

@thepetk sure I can changed the version, but for me it looks like the problem should be fixed on the parser end.

[thepetk]

/retest

[thepetk]

@thepetk sure I can changed the version, but for me it looks like the problem should be fixed on the parser end.

@ibuziuk FYI I've created devfile/api#1454 in order to update the parser and add support for devfile schema - versions 2.2.1 & 2.2.2

[ibuziuk]

@kadel @thepetk @elsony please, review

[thepetk]

/retest

[thepetk]

/retest

[thepetk]

@ibuziuk I've tested locally the new devfile and it looks good to me.

One minor detail I would suggest is to create a new default version (e.g. 1.0.3) of the dotnet60 instead of directly updating the 1.0.2. The updated stacks/dotnet60 should have the following contents:

- stack.yaml
- 1.0.2/
    - devfile.yaml
    ...
- 1.0.3/
    - devfile.yaml
    ...

[ibuziuk]

One minor detail I would suggest is to create a new default version (e.g. 1.0.3) of the dotnet60 instead of directly updating the 1.0.2. The updated stacks/dotnet60 should have the following contents

@thepetk could you clarify why would you like to create intricate versioning in the repo and not just bump the version to 1.0.3 ? e.g. I do not see 1.0.1 / 1.0.0 versions atm

[thepetk]

One minor detail I would suggest is to create a new default version (e.g. 1.0.3) of the dotnet60 instead of directly updating the 1.0.2. The updated stacks/dotnet60 should have the following contents

@thepetk could you clarify why would you like to create intricate versioning in the repo and not just bump the version to 1.0.3 ? e.g. I do not see 1.0.1 / 1.0.0 versions atm

@ibuziuk IMO this would be a better approach and is followed for other stacks (e.g go, nodejs-* stacks) too. This way we can take advantage of the multiple versions support of the registry viewer and every user can trace easier the different versions of a stack. As I've mentioned it is a minor suggestion so I'm fine if we just bump up to 1.0.3 too :)

[ibuziuk]

@thepetk sounds good, thank you
I bumped the version of the devfile, but not going to add the previous 1.0.2 because I simply struggle to understand the value of it (1.0.2 does not work properly at least with Eclipse Che and I do not want it to be exposed)

[ibuziuk]

@thepetk can the PR be merged now?

[thepetk]

@thepetk can the PR be merged now?

@ibuziuk we need a review from @kadel who is listed as the stack owner.

[thepetk]

/lgtm

[kadel]

/lgtm

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: ibuziuk, kadel, thepetk

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:

• stacks/OWNERS [thepetk]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment