🏃 Use whole list matching for known types.

[Capstan]

The scheme test knows how many types should be returned, but omitted CreateOptions from being explicitly checked.

[k8s-ci-robot]

Welcome @Capstan!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/controller-runtime 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes-sigs/controller-runtime has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @Capstan. 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 /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

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.

[Capstan]

/cc @mengqiy

[Capstan]

I think this whole set could be better written using MatchAllKeys, a la

Expect(s.AllKnownTypes()).To(MatchAllKeys(Keys{
    gv.WithKind("Pod"): Equal(reflect.TypeOf(corev1.Pod{})),
    …
    gv.WithKind("CreateOptions"): Ignore(),
    …
}))

The length check would go away, being implicit to the exact match of keys. The values that aren't inspected would be Ignore()d.

If you prefer I do this approach I can either replace this or commit and follow-on.

[mengqiy]

/ok-to-test

[mengqiy]

I seems using MatchAllKeys is better. Can you please change it in this PR?
But I feel we still need to keep the length checking, since it can give us signals when upstream introduce more stuffs in the scheme and we can make appropriate changes.
e.g. 71cf6f6#diff-b8b47f9ed3f5e8f94b54d518a7693971

[Capstan]

MatchAllKeys does length checking implicitly, as the set of keys must exactly match that which is provided.

[Capstan]

@mengqiy PTAL

[Capstan]

Addresses #835.

[vincepri]

/approve

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: Capstan, vincepri

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:

• OWNERS [vincepri]

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

[Capstan]

Still need @mengqiy or another reviewer to review and lgtm.

[Capstan]

Is there some other action people are waiting for me to perform?

[vincepri]

/assign @mengqiy @alvaroaleman

[alvaroaleman]

/lgtm

[mengqiy]

/lgtm