Feat: Structurelize patch object #587
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
cncf-cla: yes
k8s-ci-robot
added
approved
yue9944882
force-pushed
the
feat/structureize-patch-object
branch
3 times, most recently
from
9a71f20 to
440d0ba
Compare
|
Did you change the code generator to do this? We need to make sure we can re-generate the code going forward... |
|
@brendandburns yep the change in generator is submitted here. kubernetes-client/gen#118. it's basically adding a type mapping to the xml configuration, i noticed the python client has already done the mapping for |
|
the endpoint for patch api endpoint is defined w/ structurelized schema but the pre-process script in the generator somehow omitted that. |
yue9944882
force-pushed
the
feat/structureize-patch-object
branch
3 times, most recently
from
5ceafdf to
38f5da1
Compare
kubernetes/src/main/java/io/kubernetes/client/custom/V1Patch.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
kubernetes/src/main/java/io/kubernetes/client/custom/V1Patch.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
kubernetes/src/main/java/io/kubernetes/client/custom/V1Patch.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
Cool. A couple of small comments and then I think this is good to go. |
yue9944882
force-pushed
the
feat/structureize-patch-object
branch
from
38f5da1 to
71aa54c
Compare
|
lets get this in! |
| this.value = value; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| private String value; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: move this above the constructor.
| throw new UnsupportedOperationException("deserializing patch data is not supported"); | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: delete empty line.
|
Sorry, a couple of additional nits... I'm going to lgtm, but can you address in a follow-up PR? Thanks! /lgtm |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: brendandburns, yue9944882 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 |
…llow-up Follow-up of #587: addressing minor comments
@brendandburns we saw that many developers are trying to pass an object directly into the patch call, making this structurelized can prevent them from that. additionally, this pull moves the patch format consts into the custom.V1Patch, which makes it easier to find