[Breaking change] Mark grpcroutes spec as required #3937
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Agreed that this is a breaking change, but it's effectively fixing a bug - we should always have made /approve |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: rikatz, youngnick 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 |
Merged
|
Thanks @rikatz! /lgtm |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What type of PR is this?
/kind bug
What this PR does / why we need it:
This PR marks grpcroute.spec as required. During this API implementation, the field
omitemptywas added to .spec, as opposed to other APIs.Because we don't rely (yet) on explicit required markers, this caused the spec field of grpcroute to be optional, making it "useless'ish" (as the .spec field of grpc route contains vital information to implement a route, it will simply fail).
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fi 8000 xes #
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: