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
Removed factory from apply command flag struct #114030
Conversation
Please note that we're already in Test Freeze for the Fast forwards are scheduled to happen every 6 hours, whereas the most recent run was: Sun Nov 20 15:27:35 UTC 2022. |
@lauchokyip: This issue is currently awaiting triage. If a SIG or subproject determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the The Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
if err != nil { | ||
return nil, err | ||
} | ||
builder := flags.Factory.NewBuilder() | ||
mapper, err := flags.Factory.ToRESTMapper() | ||
builder := f.NewBuilder() |
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.
Would it be better to use resource.NewBuilder
function instead this
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.
factory.NewBuilder()
is an interface whereas resource.NewBuilder
is a concrete function, which mean if you initialize the factory as a TestFactory
instead of a normal Factory
, then f.Builder()
can be implemented and behave differently.
That's why I think factory.NewBuidler()
is better
If you still need this PR then please rebase, if not, please close the PR |
Can factory be removed altogether from the apply package? See the wait command as an example: |
It can't be easily get rid of yet, see this comment |
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
/approve
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: 2e5c5ee841fe6872de99516118cf9ce103eb7bfb
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: brianpursley, lauchokyip 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 |
What type of PR is this?
/kind cleanup
What this PR does / why we need it:
kubectl
FlagStruct should not consist of theFactory
based of #112714 (comment)Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?
Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.: