-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.8k
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
Break some more knative/build
dependencies
#636
Break some more knative/build
dependencies
#636
Conversation
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: vdemeester 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 |
Are you planning on making the other changes in the issue in other PRs? |
@pivotal-nader-ziada if this one looks good and is green, I'll open a follow-up PR (as it can be done separately). I just wanted to have a "not-too-big" PR 👼 |
These changes are good to go by itself too so follow up PR for further changes SGTM. |
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.
Just a few minor comments, looks great! :D
One thought, do you think (if we had coverage mesasurements haha) that the coverage would go up or down with this PR? (or be the same cuz we were using build logic before anyway that maybe wasnt fully covered?) It seems like maybe there is some potential for more unit test coverage
taskRun.Status.SetCondition(&duckv1alpha1.Condition{ | ||
Type: duckv1alpha1.ConditionSucceeded, | ||
Status: corev1.ConditionUnknown, | ||
Reason: "Building", |
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.
maybe Running
instead of Building
?
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 didn't change what we had before when using BuildStatus
but yeah I agree.
That's a very good point 👼 I'll do some manual measure to make sure i don't lower the coverage. |
… and thus remove `knative/build` import from `pkg/apis` package Signed-off-by: Vincent Demeester <[email protected]>
17d45df
to
a10b83d
Compare
Using directly Pod to build TaskRunStatus Signed-off-by: Vincent Demeester <[email protected]>
a10b83d
to
ab60241
Compare
For coverage (only changed packages):
|
@vdemeester are you still going to add tests? |
@pivotal-nader-ziada I'm thinking about it 😅 I'm just running out of time today 😅 |
Signed-off-by: Vincent Demeester <[email protected]>
ab60241
to
376d172
Compare
Added some more test, coverage update
|
Also, removed a dead code :) Signed-off-by: Vincent Demeester <[email protected]>
4a1a702
to
49c71cf
Compare
/lgtm Looking forward to the follow up PR :) |
Changes
Part of #252 but not complete yet — what this does :
GetBuildSpec
fromtask_types, and thus remove
knative/buildimport from
pkg/apis` packageBuildStatus
fromPod
to then convert that to aTaskRunStatus
, let's be more direct.cc @imjasonh
Submitter Checklist
These are the criteria that every PR should meet, please check them off as you
review them:
[ ] Includes docs (if user facing)See the contribution guide
for more details.