-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.5k
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.
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
fix: unable to build multigroup projects #1507
Conversation
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: camilamacedo86 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 |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Instead of breaking scraffolded directory structure, something kubebuilder should do as infrequently as possible, why not add a sentence in the multi group migration docs to update the Dockerfile? |
HI @estroz, Thank you for your input. However, I do no thinking that we should follow-up with your suggestion.
|
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
My 2 cents:
This change sounds more like a matter of preference than one that should happen for a good technical reason, since we can easily document the Dockerfile change like all other multigroup migration changes. Perhaps a better approach would be to write a phase 2 plugin to support this preference, like the one suggested in #932. |
HI @estroz, I am not sure if it is a matter of the preference since it is broking the project and do not let the users run the testadata gen with multigroup as suggested in the docs. When we added the multi-group option we decided to add So, IHMO technically in order to keep it simple and avoid other possible issues we do not need really change the name of the dir api when is multigroup since it has no relation with. Or increase the complexity of users work with and perform manual changes. |
/hold |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Hi @estroz, After the discussion, the solution was changed to just provide the fix. |
/hold cancel |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
/test pull-kubebuilder-e2e-k8s-1-14-1 |
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.
Ran into this as well, suggested change is what I applied manually to resolve the issue.
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
closes: #1500
PS.: I do not consider this bug fix as a braking change because:
After having project scaffold and with the project layout update to multigroup support then, users are still able to use the command to re-run the edit --multigroup=true which would apply the fix.
ps.: shows that we have not too many users using the multigroup since the issue was not reported so far.