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

TEP-0047: Pipeline Task Display Name #319

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 16, 2021

Conversation

itewk
Copy link
Contributor

@itewk itewk commented Jan 26, 2021

adding a new TEP for Pipeline task display name.

@linux-foundation-easycla
Copy link

linux-foundation-easycla bot commented Jan 26, 2021

CLA Signed

The committers are authorized under a signed CLA.

@tekton-robot tekton-robot added the size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. label Jan 26, 2021
Copy link
Member

@vdemeester vdemeester left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/kind tep

teps/draft-20210126-pipeline-task-display-name.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
teps/draft-20210126-pipeline-task-display-name.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@tekton-robot tekton-robot added kind/tep Categorizes issue or PR as related to a TEP (or needs a TEP). labels Jan 27, 2021
@pritidesai
Copy link
Member

thanks @itewk for the all the updates, looks good to me.

You will have to squash all the commits into one and pick up a TEP number based on the instructions here before we can merge this.

Also, just spelling it out, this TEP is proposing an API change in pipeline and the changes can be picked up by CLI/Dashboard once it's available (to display human readable pipelineTask names if specified).

@itewk itewk force-pushed the tep/pipeline-task-displayName branch from 42a1e82 to 19a7a12 Compare January 28, 2021 20:18
@tekton-robot tekton-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jan 28, 2021
@itewk itewk force-pushed the tep/pipeline-task-displayName branch from 19a7a12 to cc147ac Compare January 28, 2021 20:21
@tekton-robot tekton-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jan 28, 2021
@itewk
Copy link
Contributor Author

itewk commented Jan 28, 2021

thanks @itewk for the all the updates, looks good to me.

You will have to squash all the commits into one and pick up a TEP number based on the instructions here before we can merge this.

@pritidesai done

@pritidesai
Copy link
Member

thanks 🙏

/lgtm

(we already have one more TEP with 0046 #318 😄 ). You might have to bump your TEP number.

@tekton-robot tekton-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 28, 2021
@itewk
Copy link
Contributor Author

itewk commented Jan 28, 2021

thanks 🙏

/lgtm

(we already have one more TEP with 0046 #318 😄 ). You might have to bump your TEP number.

@pritidesai should i bump it now? i had used the script to have it calculate the number, but i suppose that doesn't take into account other in progress PRs.

@pritidesai
Copy link
Member

@pritidesai should i bump it now? i had used the script to have it calculate the number, but i suppose that doesn't take into account other in progress PRs.

yes please if you can, that would be great 🙏

@chmouel
Copy link
Member

chmouel commented Jan 29, 2021

/lgtm

@itewk itewk force-pushed the tep/pipeline-task-displayName branch from cc147ac to 2356c19 Compare January 29, 2021 12:41
@tekton-robot tekton-robot removed the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 29, 2021
@itewk
Copy link
Contributor Author

itewk commented Jan 29, 2021

@pritidesai updated the TEP number as requested and re-based

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Mar 1, 2021

We already have Pipeline.spec.description (and similar in other resources) added by tektoncd/pipeline#2089, and taskSpec.metadata for inline TaskSpecs in PipelineTasks added by tektoncd/pipeline#2826, so are we proposing to replace these? It would be a breaking change, but possibly one worth making for consistency.

I think this sounds like a pro in favor of Possible solution 1? - Suggest adding something like "since we have established fields like pipeline.spec.description that perform similar function we continue that pattern with new fields such as pipeline.spec.tasks[*].displayName"

And also possibly a con against Possible solution 2? - Suggest adding something like "moving to annotations may mean we need to deprecate the existing description fields like pipeline.spec.description to avoid confusion and duplicate functionality".

We'll have to do some legwork here when taking the TEP to implementable to assess which route (or a completely different one entirely) is ultimately best to go down.

@itewk
Copy link
Contributor Author

itewk commented Mar 2, 2021

@sbwsg @AlanGreene sooo....should I be updating the TEP in some way in order to get it merged in?

@itewk itewk force-pushed the tep/pipeline-task-displayName branch from 5c1ce59 to 1b682b8 Compare March 2, 2021 13:15
@tekton-robot tekton-robot removed lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. labels Mar 2, 2021
@itewk
Copy link
Contributor Author

itewk commented Mar 2, 2021

rebased on latest from main

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Mar 2, 2021

@sbwsg @AlanGreene sooo....should I be updating the TEP in some way in order to get it merged in?

Probably the quickest way to get this merged would be to remove any mention of implemention. Remove possible solution 1, possible solution 2. Remove mention of specific field names such as pipeline.spec.tasks[*].displayName. Just reduce the doc to its problem statement. It will then be the responsibility of whoever takes this TEP to implementable status to figure out the implementation they want to move forward with.

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Mar 2, 2021

(But even after making those changes you'll still need two reviewers to agree that the TEP is mergeable. I'm just saying what I would lgtm from my perspective. Another reviewer may see things differently.)

@itewk
Copy link
Contributor Author

itewk commented Mar 5, 2021

@sbwsg @AlanGreene @chmouel @pritidesai i'm confused, because the template explicitly calls out putting in suggestions for implementation, isn't that what they are exactly, just suggestions, and then whoever implements can do whatever ends up making sense? If you all want me to remove the suggestions I will. It seems everyone agrees this feature is needed, however its implemented, I am looking to the smoothest path to at least have it on the road map.

@tekton-robot tekton-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Mar 5, 2021
@itewk itewk force-pushed the tep/pipeline-task-displayName branch from 1b682b8 to 55de2ff Compare March 5, 2021 13:59
@tekton-robot tekton-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Mar 5, 2021
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Mar 5, 2021

It seems everyone agrees this feature is needed, however its implemented

Right, this is what I'm suggesting we reduce the TEP to - the parts folks agree on.

With suggested implementations, as reviewers we have to figure out whether they're workable and what trade-offs we make in the system's design as a result. It looks like most of the sticking points here are centered on those suggestions, hence my proposal to remove them entirely. Again, other folks may feel differently and I'd like to hear from them because my read of all this could be entirely off base.

@itewk
Copy link
Contributor Author

itewk commented Mar 10, 2021

@sbwsg understood.

@AlanGreene @chmouel @pritidesai what are your all thoughts? should i remove any suggestion for specific implementation to be able to merge, or are you all ready to review and merge as is?

@AlanGreene
Copy link
Member

We all seem to agree this is something that's needed / worth doing, but there's still some work to be done around the proposed implementation. I'd be on board with @sbwsg's suggestion to remove the implementation details for now to get the TEP merged.

@itewk itewk force-pushed the tep/pipeline-task-displayName branch from 55de2ff to abd66ca Compare March 11, 2021 12:43
@itewk itewk force-pushed the tep/pipeline-task-displayName branch from abd66ca to fae0d6f Compare March 11, 2021 12:43
@itewk
Copy link
Contributor Author

itewk commented Mar 11, 2021

@sbwsg @AlanGreene removed any implementation suggestions and re-based.

@tekton-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: sbwsg

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 /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@tekton-robot tekton-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Mar 11, 2021
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Mar 16, 2021

@AlanGreene @pritidesai this TEP looks ready to merge to my 👀 . What do you folks think?

@AlanGreene
Copy link
Member

/lgtm

@tekton-robot tekton-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Mar 16, 2021
@tekton-robot tekton-robot merged commit d0ad1ac into tektoncd:main Mar 16, 2021
@itewk itewk deleted the tep/pipeline-task-displayName branch March 16, 2021 14:22
@itewk
Copy link
Contributor Author

itewk commented Mar 16, 2021

wahooo!!! thanks everyone

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. kind/tep Categorizes issue or PR as related to a TEP (or needs a TEP). lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants