-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 580
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
Fix typo in AWSManagedMachinePool UpdateConfig #3467
Fix typo in AWSManagedMachinePool UpdateConfig #3467
Conversation
Welcome @phoban01! |
@phoban01: This issue is currently awaiting triage. If CAPA/CAPI contributors 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. |
Hi @phoban01. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. 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. |
/ok-to-test |
@richardcase, is changing a go struct tag, not a struct field name, considered as a breaking API change? |
This is a breaking change, we'll need to fix in the next major release. |
/hold |
I added this as a link in the v1beta2 issue for tracking |
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs. This bot triages issues and PRs according to the following rules:
You can:
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community. /lifecycle stale |
/remove-lifecycle stale |
I think we should keep lifecycle as is 😄 authors can take necessary action, maybe revive PR, or it will get closed automatically. |
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs. This bot triages issues and PRs according to the following rules:
You can:
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community. /lifecycle rotten |
Since we have v1beta2 APIs |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: Ankitasw 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 |
/hold |
@phoban01 As verify job is failing, it requires |
Signed-off-by: Piaras Hoban <phoban01@gmail.com>
9a1971f
to
ba05d77
Compare
@@ -276,5 +276,5 @@ type UpdateConfig struct { | |||
// +optional | |||
// +kubebuilder:validation:Maximum=100 | |||
// +kubebuilder:validation:Minimum=1 | |||
MaxUnavailablePercentage *int `json:"maxUnavailablePrecentage,omitempty"` | |||
MaxUnavailablePercentage *int `json:"maxUnavailablePercentage,omitempty"` |
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.
Is this technically a breaking change? If someone used this with the incorrect spelling and uses the new version it wouldn't recognise that setting.
I'm think that we might have to introduce an intentionally misspelled version deprecate this one and redirect to the correctly spelled one. Unless people think that it's not necessary. 😁
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.
This is a breaking change yes.
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.
Right, I didn't read the previous comments. 🤦
Err... so can we merge this now? Since we had 2.0.0 sort of..? @richardcase ?
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 also thought did we need a new struct field to force conversion, but the fuzzing tests would've picked this up.
I agree, as we are bumping the API version this breaking change is ok to go into 2.0.0. So
/lgtm
Running the e2e again before unholding: /test pull-cluster-api-provider-aws-e2e |
/unhold |
…breaking-change Revert "Merge pull request #3467 from phoban01/fix-awsmachinepool-spec typo"
What type of PR is this?
/kind cleanup
What this PR does / why we need it:
I noticed a small typo in the spelling of "percentage" in the struct tag for ``UpdateConfig.MaxUnavailablePercentage`.
Special notes for your reviewer:
Checklist: