This repository was archived by the owner on Mar 26, 2025. It is now read-only.
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 197
Changes the necessary data fields for the clientSSLCertSecret and serverSSLCertSecret #850
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
10 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
16c7d12
Add JKS and PEM format custom SSL cert support
bartam1 5fd0d86
Add stage 2
bartam1 ba64326
Remove PEM support
bartam1 509908f
Refactor 1
bartam1 33f311e
Add Stage before PR
bartam1 577eb07
Fix test and found issues
bartam1 adc836c
Refactor 2
bartam1 fb21d65
Refactor 3
bartam1 9968361
Fix review
bartam1 cbb660a
Merge branch 'master' into pemjkslistener
bartam1 File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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'm not sure why this needed to change. It should be fine as
varName, varName2 type
as it was originally shouldn't it?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.
Yeah, it is a usual practice to shorten the function signature by omitting the continuously recurring type, but it does have a clarity reason to have the types stated explicitly, I would say it depends on personal taste.
Edit: also checked GoCodeReviewComments and Effective Go, because I thought it is a stated convention to omit continuously recurring types, but I found nothing on this matter in either of those sources.
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.
It has been changed because I put another variable between them but later I removed it.