-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
Conversation
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.
LGTM.
Why is the build failing though? |
There was a missing variable and the template error was ignored so it was silently truncating the output. |
Okay build now fails very oddly - any idea what the cause could be? |
I think chart linting is kind of new, we probably haven't built ignition-operator since it got added |
Running ct lint locally I don't get this issue |
Yes - the error is super confusing to me:
I don't understand how the unmarshal of that file fails - especially why does it refer to some old chart version? |
If I set a version in values.yaml and re-lint, I get the error locally |
Trying with a random string version gives me the same result:
|
This open issue makes me think it references the previous chart version |
I'm trying to re-run the job with SSH and see what's wrong there |
So it's already templated and looks ok to me... |
This gives some more information:
Also:
|
I've raised a PR in |
This pushed me a bit further:
We should fix the job to use |
I guess |
Oops he already mentioned that #37 (comment) :) |
Question is, do we care about those missing values? I mean the linter is doing its thing... The values are needed for a Helm Chart to be 'accurate' If we don't need them, I think then it's better to introduce an option to either use a config file for ct or override options. My initial PR for |
We can't avoid having missing |
Regarding this error:
This is a renderer error and I couldn't see a way to bypass it with a switch to ---
Installation:
V1:
Secret:
Registry:
PullSecret:
DockerConfigJSON: SomeString Lint should work fine after this:
I'll continue to create a PR which allows the user to make the tests less strict. But skipping missing values will require a ci values file. |
Replaced by #47 |
Includes fixes so that linting passes.
Currently fails due to a missing
CloudProvider
field which was also identified here. I can either fix that bug here or update this PR if that one goes in first