Skip to content
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

Use the correct type for UpgradableFrom. #1197

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Dec 19, 2019
Merged

Conversation

porridge
Copy link
Member

@porridge porridge commented Dec 17, 2019

What this PR does / why we need it:

It seems to me like using the full-blown type with spec, status and all had been a mistake.
This field seems unused in the code, so maybe that is why this was missed.

This is a baby step towards #862.

Copy link
Contributor

@alenkacz alenkacz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I guess LGTM? I don't really know what to do with these PRs :) I would rather remove unused things from CRDs and add them when really needed

@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ type OperatorVersionSpec struct {
Dependencies []OperatorDependency `json:"dependencies,omitempty"`

// UpgradableFrom lists all OperatorVersions that can upgrade to this OperatorVersion.
UpgradableFrom []OperatorVersion `json:"upgradableFrom,omitempty"`
UpgradableFrom []corev1.ObjectReference `json:"upgradableFrom,omitempty"`
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

🤷‍♀ we don't really use this field, so I wouldn't be against removing it until we know what to do with it :)

@porridge porridge merged commit 770d862 into master Dec 19, 2019
@porridge porridge deleted the crd-correction-reftype branch December 19, 2019 06:51
ANeumann82 pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 13, 2020
It seems to me like using the full-blown type with spec, status and all had been a mistake.
This field seems unused in the code, so maybe that is why this was missed.

This is a baby step towards #862.

Signed-off-by: Andreas Neumann <aneumann@mesosphere.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants