runtime.Object apiVersion/kind is empty #3288
Conversation
karmada-bot
added
the
kind/cleanup
karmada-bot
added
the
size/S
|
Just a question,will this change break compatibility? |
Good question. |
Signed-off-by: xigang <wangxigang2014@gmail.com>
Codecov Report
📣 This organization is not using Codecov’s GitHub App Integration. We recommend you install it so Codecov can continue to function properly for your repositories. Learn more @@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #3288 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 49.40% 49.39% -0.02%
==========================================
Files 207 207
Lines 18499 18505 +6
==========================================
Hits 9140 9140
- Misses 8865 8869 +4
- Partials 494 496 +2
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here. |
|
/lgtm |
| @@ -74,7 +74,18 @@ func ClusterWideKeyFunc(obj interface{}) (ClusterWideKey, error) { | |||
| return key, fmt.Errorf("object has no meta: %v", err) | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| // When using a typed client, decoding to a versioned struct (not an internal API type), the apiVersion/kind | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is APIVersion/Kind information of runtime.Object filled in when we using dynamic client?
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: RainbowMango 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 |
karmada-bot
added
the
approved
RainbowMango
changed the title
What type of PR is this?
/kind cleanup
What this PR does / why we need it:
When using a typed client, decoding to a versioned struct (not an internal API type), the apiVersion/kind information will be dropped. Therefore, the APIVersion/Kind information of runtime.Object needs to be verified.
See issue: kubernetes/kubernetes#80609
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #3275
Special notes for your reviewer:
@RainbowMango @whitewindmills
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: