fix: handle repos with different release branch naming in crd-schema-checker by fjglira · Pull Request #1897 · istio-ecosystem/sail-operator

fjglira · 2026-04-29T16:08:04Z

We are getting failures in a fork after the changes were made to the linter on this PR

Issue

When not on a release branch, the script previously derived the comparison branch from PREVIOUS_VERSION (e.g. release-1.29). This broke in repos that use a different naming convention (e.g. forks of repos using release-3.x), and also meant the pinned value could go stale as new releases were cut.

This change aligns the non-release-branch case with the release-branch case, which already auto-detects the relevant branch via sort -V. When not on a release branch, the script now always uses the latest available release-* branch. A PREVIOUS_BRANCH env var is also added as an explicit override when needed.

Behavior by scenario

Scenario	Before	After
Upstream, on `release-1.30`	auto-detects `release-1.29` ✓	unchanged ✓
Upstream, on `main`	uses `release-1.29` (pinned, potentially stale)	auto-detects `release-1.30` (latest) ✓
Downstream, on `main`	fails — `release-1.29` not found	auto-detects `release-3.3.2` ✓
Any repo, no release branches	skipped	skipped ✓

Assisted by @claude

codecov · 2026-04-29T16:13:04Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 80.29%. Comparing base (31f6d0f) to head (c859e83).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1897      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   80.44%   80.29%   -0.16%     
==========================================
  Files          51       51              
  Lines        2598     2598              
==========================================
- Hits         2090     2086       -4     
- Misses        385      387       +2     
- Partials      123      125       +2

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration-tests	`71.16% <ø> (-0.31%)`	⬇️
unit-tests	`52.30% <ø> (ø)`

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

FilipB

I don't understand why this was not visible earlier.

Edit: nevermind I do now

FilipB · 2026-04-30T06:02:26Z

    previous_branch=$(git branch -r | grep -E 'origin/release-[0-9]+\.[0-9]+$' | 
        sed 's|.*origin/||' | sort -V | 
        awk -v target="$current_branch" '$0 == target { print prev; exit } { prev = $0 }')
-elif [[ -n "${PREVIOUS_VERSION:-}" ]]; then


As PREVIOUS_VERSION is not used anymore anywhere in this script it probably does not make sense to pass this variable to this script in the Makefile.

FilipB · 2026-04-30T06:03:28Z

        awk -v target="$current_branch" '$0 == target { print prev; exit } { prev = $0 }')
-elif [[ -n "${PREVIOUS_VERSION:-}" ]]; then
-    previous_branch="release-$(echo "${PREVIOUS_VERSION}" | cut -f1,2 -d'.')"
+elif [[ -n "${PREVIOUS_BRANCH:-}" ]]; then


PREVIOUS_BRANCH is not described anywhere, maybe a short help would be good for this script.

Added a note about PREVIOUS_BRANCH use

fjglira · 2026-04-30T08:09:09Z

I don't understand why this was not visible earlier.

Because the change was merged 3 weeks ago and we have been dealing with the sync error since then

…checker When PREVIOUS_VERSION is set but the derived branch (e.g. release-1.29) doesn't exist in the cloned repo, fall back to the latest available release-* branch instead of failing. This supports downstream repos that use a different naming convention (e.g. release-3.x). Also add a PREVIOUS_BRANCH env var for callers that need to specify the exact previous branch name explicitly. Fixes the lint-crds failure in openshift-service-mesh/sail-operator sync PRs where the repo uses release-3.x naming. Signed-off-by: Francisco Herrera <fjglira@gmail.com>

fjglira · 2026-04-30T08:20:48Z

/retest

fjglira · 2026-04-30T08:41:20Z

/retest

FilipB · 2026-04-30T09:07:21Z

+        sed 's|.*origin/||' | sort -V | tail -1)
+    if [[ -z "$previous_branch" ]]; then
+        echo "No release branches found. Skipping."
+        exit 0


Maybe we should exit with error? If this should catch problems, we should not silently skip the test if the branch is not found

Adding exit error when No releases branches found Signed-off-by: Francisco Herrera <fjglira@gmail.com>

* upstream/main: (41 commits) fix: handle repos with different release branch naming in crd-schema-checker (istio-ecosystem#1897) Automator: Update dependencies in istio-ecosystem/sail-operator@main (istio-ecosystem#1899) Automator: Update dependencies in istio-ecosystem/sail-operator@main (istio-ecosystem#1896) Fix test docs test failure (istio-ecosystem#1890) Automator: Update dependencies in istio-ecosystem/sail-operator@main (istio-ecosystem#1892) Skip processing aliases referencing pre-released versions in EOL updater (istio-ecosystem#1883) Automator: Update dependencies in istio-ecosystem/sail-operator@main (istio-ecosystem#1886) Automator: Update dependencies in istio-ecosystem/sail-operator@main (istio-ecosystem#1884) Fixing two problems with our hack/update-istio.sh script (istio-ecosystem#1882) test: Modify await_operator to dinamically get deployment name from csv when OLM is true (istio-ecosystem#1874) Update update-deps flow with 1.30 and remove 1.27 branch (istio-ecosystem#1875) tests: Skip TLS profile change test when is executed on Hosted clusters (istio-ecosystem#1873) Add 1.30.0-alpha.2 charts (istio-ecosystem#1854) Automator: Update dependencies in istio-ecosystem/sail-operator@main (istio-ecosystem#1872) Using crane instead of skopeo which is not available in the build-tools (istio-ecosystem#1870) Sync min tls version from `TLSConfig` to `Istio` (istio-ecosystem#1859) Fix serves metrics securely test (istio-ecosystem#1860) refactor: vendor kubernetes manifests into the repo (istio-ecosystem#1853) Automator: Update dependencies in istio-ecosystem/sail-operator@main (istio-ecosystem#1856) Modify "download-charts" script for alpha/beta releases (istio-ecosystem#1852) ...

fjglira requested a review from a team as a code owner April 29, 2026 16:08

istio-testing added the size/S label Apr 29, 2026

fjglira force-pushed the fix-linter-midstream branch from 264041e to ef9a370 Compare April 29, 2026 16:19

FilipB requested changes Apr 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

fjglira force-pushed the fix-linter-midstream branch from ef9a370 to 4aa0787 Compare April 30, 2026 08:12

FilipB reviewed Apr 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

Changes from review

c859e83

Adding exit error when No releases branches found Signed-off-by: Francisco Herrera <fjglira@gmail.com>

fjglira requested a review from FilipB April 30, 2026 09:38

FilipB approved these changes Apr 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

istio-testing merged commit 5ec0a1c into istio-ecosystem:main Apr 30, 2026
17 of 18 checks passed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

fix: handle repos with different release branch naming in crd-schema-checker#1897

fix: handle repos with different release branch naming in crd-schema-checker#1897
istio-testing merged 2 commits into
istio-ecosystem:mainfrom
fjglira:fix-linter-midstream

fjglira commented Apr 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Apr 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

FilipB left a comment •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

FilipB Apr 30, 2026

Uh oh!

fjglira Apr 30, 2026

Uh oh!

FilipB Apr 30, 2026

Uh oh!

fjglira Apr 30, 2026

Uh oh!

fjglira commented Apr 30, 2026

Uh oh!

fjglira commented Apr 30, 2026

Uh oh!

fjglira commented Apr 30, 2026

Uh oh!

FilipB Apr 30, 2026

Uh oh!

fjglira Apr 30, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

Conversation

fjglira commented Apr 29, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Issue

Behavior by scenario

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Apr 29, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

FilipB left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

FilipB Apr 30, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

fjglira Apr 30, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

FilipB Apr 30, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

fjglira Apr 30, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

fjglira commented Apr 30, 2026

Uh oh!

fjglira commented Apr 30, 2026

Uh oh!

fjglira commented Apr 30, 2026

Uh oh!

FilipB Apr 30, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

fjglira Apr 30, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

fjglira commented Apr 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov Bot commented Apr 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading

FilipB left a comment •

edited

Loading