Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Fix typos in KeyUsage constant names #82511

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 27, 2019
Merged

Fix typos in KeyUsage constant names #82511

merged 1 commit into from
Sep 27, 2019

Conversation

abursavich
Copy link
Contributor

@abursavich abursavich commented Sep 10, 2019 •
edited
Loading

What type of PR is this?
/kind api-change
/kind cleanup

What this PR does / why we need it:
This fixes typos in KeyUsage constant names.

I am generating code from the API packages and this tickled an edge case where I'm trying to generate nicer enum names.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
N/A

Special notes for your reviewer:
As possible precedence for changing constant names, one of these typos was introduced by a PR attempting to fix typos: #59464

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:
I'm not 100% sure what constitutes a "user-facing" change... This could break users of the Go k8s.io/api/certificates/v1beta1 package.

Fix typos in `certificates.k8s.io/v1beta1` KeyUsage constant names: `UsageContentCommittment` becomes `UsageContentCommitment` and `UsageNetscapSGC` becomes `UsageNetscapeSGC`.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. kind/api-change Categorizes issue or PR as related to adding, removing, or otherwise changing an API size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. kind/cleanup Categorizes issue or PR as related to cleaning up code, process, or technical debt. needs-sig Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `sig/foo` label and requires one. needs-priority Indicates a PR lacks a `priority/foo` label and requires one. labels Sep 10, 2019
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @abursavich. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. area/kubeadm sig/auth Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Auth. sig/cluster-lifecycle Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Cluster Lifecycle. and removed needs-sig Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `sig/foo` label and requires one. labels Sep 10, 2019
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot requested review from deads2k and kad September 10, 2019 01:56
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. label Sep 10, 2019
draveness
draveness reviewed Sep 10, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@draveness draveness left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

/ok-to-test

Thanks for the catch

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. label Sep 10, 2019
@fejta-bot
Copy link

This PR may require API review.

If so, when the changes are ready, complete the pre-review checklist and request an API review.

Status of requested reviews is tracked in the API Review project.

@neolit123
Copy link
Member

I'm not 100% sure what constitutes a "user-facing" change... This could break users of the Go k8s.io/api/certificates/v1beta1 package.

changes in kubeadm or pkg/apis/certificates/types.go are OK, since these packages should not be vendored, however staging/src/k8s.io/api/certificates/v1beta1/types.go could break users.

i think the correct approach is to introduce these changes in a new certificates/v1beta2 version.

@neolit123
Copy link
Member

@abursavich
you can ask in the k8s slack channel #sig-auth about this.

@abursavich
Copy link
Contributor Author

abursavich commented Sep 10, 2019 •
edited
Loading

i think the correct approach is to introduce these changes in a new certificates/v1beta2 version.

If the change would break encoding (rpc, storage, etc.), then I don't think there would be a question — v1beta2 would be required. But this change only breaks the Go package API and, rightly or wrongly, there does seem to be plenty of precedents for that.

you can ask in the k8s slack channel #sig-auth about this.

I dropped the question in the slack channel and will wait for a response... Thanks!

@deads2k
Copy link
Contributor

deads2k commented Sep 10, 2019

I'm not 100% sure what constitutes a "user-facing" change... This could break users of the Go k8s.io/api/certificates/v1beta1 package.

changes in kubeadm or pkg/apis/certificates/types.go are OK, since these packages should not be vendored, however staging/src/k8s.io/api/certificates/v1beta1/types.go could break users.

i think the correct approach is to introduce these changes in a new certificates/v1beta2 version.

We do not guarantee source compatibility between releases. This came up on the sig-arch mailing list too. Source incompatible changes like this are allowed without new packages.

@abursavich abursavich mentioned this pull request Sep 10, 2019
Closed
@abursavich
Copy link
Contributor Author

I didn't try to grok all 85k lines of log output, but it seems like those test failures were unrelated and around copying test artifacts after the fact.

/retest

draveness
draveness reviewed Sep 12, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@draveness draveness left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

/lgtm

Thanks, Please update the release note with the original and replacement constants.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Sep 12, 2019
@draveness
Copy link
Contributor

/remove-kind api-change

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. kind/api-change Categorizes issue or PR as related to adding, removing, or otherwise changing an API and removed kind/api-change Categorizes issue or PR as related to adding, removing, or otherwise changing an API release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. labels Sep 12, 2019
@abursavich
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks, Please update the release note with the original and replacement constants.

Done, thanks.

@deads2k
Copy link
Contributor

deads2k commented Sep 13, 2019

/lgtm

@abursavich
Copy link
Contributor Author

/assign @smarterclayton

@abursavich
Copy link
Contributor Author

Gentle nudge... small change waiting 2 weeks for approval.

@neolit123
Copy link
Member

i can only approve the kubeadm change. the rest is on the api-approvers.
/approve

@dims
Copy link
Member

dims commented Sep 26, 2019

/assign @liggitt

@liggitt
Copy link
Member

liggitt commented Sep 27, 2019

/lgtm
/approve

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: abursavich, liggitt, neolit123

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 /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Sep 27, 2019
@fejta-bot
Copy link

/retest
This bot automatically retries jobs that failed/flaked on approved PRs (send feedback to fejta).

Review the full test history for this PR.

Silence the bot with an /lgtm cancel or /hold comment for consistent failures.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit dd5efc4 into kubernetes:master Sep 27, 2019
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added this to the v1.17 milestone Sep 27, 2019
@abursavich abursavich deleted the keyusage branch August 31, 2020 17:36
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@draveness draveness draveness left review comments

@deads2k deads2k Awaiting requested review from deads2k

@kad kad Awaiting requested review from kad

Assignees

@liggitt liggitt

@smarterclayton smarterclayton

@draveness draveness

@deads2k deads2k

Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. area/kubeadm cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. kind/api-change Categorizes issue or PR as related to adding, removing, or otherwise changing an API kind/cleanup Categorizes issue or PR as related to cleaning up code, process, or technical debt. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. needs-priority Indicates a PR lacks a `priority/foo` label and requires one. ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. sig/auth Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Auth. sig/cluster-lifecycle Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Cluster Lifecycle. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
v1.17
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
9 participants
@abursavich @k8s-ci-robot @fejta-bot @neolit123 @deads2k @draveness @dims @liggitt @smarterclayton