-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 84
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
Remove platform version header check comment #661
Remove platform version header check comment #661
Conversation
3134e1d
to
3889924
Compare
Changes Unknown when pulling 3889924 on eriknelson:rm-handler-header-comment into ** on openshift:master**. |
Changes Unknown when pulling 3889924 on eriknelson:rm-handler-header-comment into ** on openshift:master**. |
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.
Failed LINT check
=================================
Lint
=================================
pkg/apb/types.go:318:2: struct field HttpProxy should be HTTPProxy
pkg/apb/types.go:319:2: struct field HttpsProxy should be HTTPSProxy
Found 2 lint suggestions; failing.
Makefile:27: recipe for target 'lint' failed
make: *** [lint] Error 1
The command "./scripts/travis.sh lint" exited with 2.
Rebase so it picks up the linter fixes |
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.
👍
3889924
to
022c9f6
Compare
Changes Unknown when pulling 022c9f6 on eriknelson:rm-handler-header-comment into ** on openshift:master**. |
@jmrodri rebased |
Merging without a bug since it removes a comment. |
Describe what this PR does and why we need it:
PR does nothing but remove a very old header check that has been commented out. Background on this is when we inherited our original http server from the template broker, it was checking for the presence of the
X-Broker-API-Version
, which MUST be sent by the platform to brokers. The broker has no obligation with regard to this header; it's there in case brokers rely on features that may not be present in the platform they're currently talking to. IIRC, I created this issue because at the time, the catalog was not sending the header.I'm removing the comment (and want to close the issue) because I don't see an immediate need for us to re-introduce the check, especially considering we're often a project that is validating proposed features to the spec that do not yet exist in OSB master. The issue should be reopened, or a new issue filed if we find a need to cooperate with platforms that are not the k8s service catalog (could forsee this as we start to talk about the BrokerSDK).
Which issue this PR fixes (This will close that issue when PR gets merged)
fixes #34