Skip to content

Embed Applier interface in kubectlClient interface #145

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 26, 2021
Merged

Embed Applier interface in kubectlClient interface #145

merged 1 commit into from
Jul 26, 2021
+2 −2

Conversation

darkowlzz
Copy link
Contributor

@darkowlzz darkowlzz commented Jan 14, 2021 •
edited
Loading

Rename Applier interface method from Applyx to Apply and embed
the Applier interface in the kubectlClient interface.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. label Jan 14, 2021
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Welcome @darkowlzz!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/kubebuilder-declarative-pattern 🎉. 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/kubebuilder-declarative-pattern 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
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @darkowlzz. 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.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. sig/api-machinery Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG API Machinery. labels Jan 14, 2021
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. label Jan 14, 2021
@darkowlzz
Embed Applier interface in kubectlClient interface
baf9712 
Rename Applier interface method from `Applyx` to `Apply` and embed
the Applier interface in the `kubectlClient` interface.
@darkowlzz darkowlzz changed the title Remove kubectlClient and use Applier interface Embed Applier interface in kubectlClient interface Jan 14, 2021
@atoato88
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm
Nice catch!! and because of this, we can use this interface efficient.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 19, 2021
@atoato88
Copy link
Contributor

/ok-to-test

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. and removed needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Jan 20, 2021
@atoato88
Copy link
Contributor

@darkowlzz
It's good to assign the approver to this PR for smooth merging process.
Please refer comments above from k8s-ci-bot in this PR.

@darkowlzz
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks @atoato88 .

/assign @mengqiy

@fejta-bot
Copy link

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

Send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.
/lifecycle stale

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. label Apr 21, 2021
@atoato88
Copy link
Contributor

/remove-lifecycle stale

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. label Apr 22, 2021
@fejta-bot
Copy link

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

Send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.
/lifecycle stale

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. label Jul 21, 2021
justinsb
justinsb reviewed Jul 26, 2021
View reviewed changes
pkg/patterns/declarative/reconciler.go
@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ type Reconciler struct {
}

type kubectlClient interface {
Apply(ctx context.Context, namespace string, manifest string, validate bool, args ...string) error
applier.Applier
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This seems reasonable. I do wonder if there's any reason to keep the kubectlClient interface, if we have the exported applier.Applier interface...

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Agree with your comment, we can use Applier interface instead of kubectlClient interface.

@justinsb
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks @darkowlzz

/approve
/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: darkowlzz, justinsb

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

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Jul 26, 2021
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit e9de8f5 into kubernetes-sigs:master Jul 26, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@justinsb justinsb justinsb left review comments

@atoato88 atoato88 Awaiting requested review from atoato88

@johnsonj johnsonj Awaiting requested review from johnsonj

Assignees

@justinsb justinsb

@atoato88 atoato88

@mengqiy mengqiy

Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. sig/api-machinery Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG API Machinery. size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
6 participants
@darkowlzz @k8s-ci-robot @atoato88 @fejta-bot @justinsb @mengqiy