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
Update the vendor Makefile target and update the vendored dependencies #590
Update the vendor Makefile target and update the vendored dependencies #590
Conversation
Run `make vendor` locally and commit the changes. Removes the unused k8s.io/apiserver dependency and it's implicit dependencies.
@@ -55,7 +55,6 @@ require ( | |||
k8s.io/api v0.20.0 | |||
k8s.io/apiextensions-apiserver v0.20.0 | |||
k8s.io/apimachinery v0.20.0 | |||
k8s.io/apiserver v0.20.0 |
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.
I was looking through the codebase and noticed that the apiserver dependency was unused. It looks like running go mod tidy
locally backed up this assumption.
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.
We used to vendor more k8s stuff in this repo and had a bit of circular deps between OLM and registry. We decoupled them and resolved those issues. So this is probably leftover that is not cleaned-up.
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.
Yeah, that's understandable. I was looking through the codebase and noticed that, and I have Go 1.16 locally which was able to spot that in the go.mod. This could also just be an artifact from the Go 1.15 bump from last week.
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.
Actually, this kind of scenario is exactly why I added a vendor
check in the metering-related repositories. I can add something similar as an action or update the prow configuration.
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.
Nice, it looks like #596 is already producing CI feedback that prompted this PR. It looks like there may be some race conditions in the bundle unpacking test that are popping up this week. We need to merge this change first before attempting to merge that vendor action check.
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #590 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 48.80% 48.80%
=======================================
Files 90 90
Lines 6278 6278
=======================================
Hits 3064 3064
Misses 2529 2529
Partials 685 685 Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
/test e2e-aws |
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.
/approve
@timflannagan: The following test failed, say
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. 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. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
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
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: dinhxuanvu, joelanford, timflannagan 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 |
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
Description of the change:
Motivation for the change:
Reviewer Checklist
/docs