#863 Fix naming of consumer group attribute

[thompson-tomo]

Closes #863

[mtmk]

LGTM

[thompson-tomo]

Flaky test again?

[mtmk]

Flaky test again?

yep! just kicked it

[thompson-tomo]

And all passing. 🎉

[mtmk]

ouch 😵

@thompson-tomo sorry didn't warn you about this! how's your git-fu? i usually suggest to squash all into one commit, sign and force push

[thompson-tomo]

I have fixed my commits but it appears that there is something wrong with either e59beee or 56b4095 as branches which include them are running into this issue but branches from earlier are not. That is why #869 is also in error

[mtmk]

I have fixed my commits but it appears that there is something wrong with either e59beee or 56b4095 as branches which include them are running into this issue but branches from earlier are not. That is why #869 is also in error

yes, those two commits were added to main after you created your branches. you need to either rebase or merge them once you sign your commits. just make sure your diff here is correct and your commits are signed (with GPG or SSH). hit me on https://slack.nats.io if you want i'm not a git expert but i should be able to help you with this 🤞😅

[mtmk]

sorry @thompson-tomo i think i didn't explain properly. we need the commits to be signed as in here https://docs.github.com/en/authentication/managing-commit-signature-verification/about-commit-signature-verification using gpg (i believe you can use ssh as well). afaik we don't necessarily need the 'signed off by' text.

[thompson-tomo]

And i have resolved it on 1 of my computers. :D I was missing the gpg key setup part, as i'd never encountered a project requiring that to have been setup Usually if anything having the signed off part + a signed cla is usually sufficient.

Note the checks for the 2.7 branch are different to the main so that also threw me.

Thanks for your support.

[mtmk]

And i have resolved it on 1 of my computers. :D I was missing the gpg key setup part, as i'd never encountered a project requiring that to have been setup Usually if anything having the signed off part + a signed cla is usually sufficient.

yea it's a CNCF thing we need to have GPG signed commits.

Note the checks for the 2.7 branch are different to the main so that also threw me.

I'll check that, thanks.

Thanks for your support.

you're welcome. sorry for the hassle, i should've noticed it before and you have a few commits across few PR 😅 hopefully didn't cause you too much work. thanks!

[thompson-tomo]

yea it's a CNCF thing we need to have GPG signed commits.

Interesting as projects like cloud events (also cncf) just have dco.

[mtmk]

yea it's a CNCF thing we need to have GPG signed commits.

Interesting as projects like cloud events (also cncf) just have dco.

hmmm ok. i thought it was cncf. maybe it's nats-io specific thing not sure tbh. it's a 'good thing' i agree in general. it's just like you said if we can make it so new contributions are made aware as quick as possible.