-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 423
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
🐛 pkg/crd: support validating internal list items on list types #897
🐛 pkg/crd: support validating internal list items on list types #897
Conversation
Welcome @AlexanderYastrebov! |
Hi @AlexanderYastrebov. 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. |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: AlexanderYastrebov The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
For kubernetes-sigs#342 Signed-off-by: Alexander Yastrebov <alexander.yastrebov@zalando.de>
1832134
to
a0d0d21
Compare
// +kubebuilder:validation:MinLength=1 | ||
// +kubebuilder:validation:MaxLength=255 | ||
// +kubebuilder:validation:Pattern=^[a-z0-9]([-a-z0-9]*[a-z0-9])?([.][a-z0-9]([-a-z0-9]*[a-z0-9])?)*$ | ||
Hosts []string `json:"hosts,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.
I think we have to find a way to differentiate if the validation is for the list as a whole or for the individual items in the list. This change just changes things to assume that its for the items. I don't think that is correct and its a breaking change
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 don't think that is correct and its a breaking change
I don't think its a breaking change as previously these markers were rejected for slice types.
I also do not see a solid reason to introduce a new set of "items" markers as they will be mutually exclusive with those I change in this PR.
Closing in favour of #898 |
For #342